# Recent Reports

Reports News from the GAO

- Nuclear Power Plants: NRC Should Take Actions to Fully Consider the Potential Effects of Climate Change What GAO FoundClimate change is expected to exacerbate natural hazards—including heat, drought, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, and sea level rise. In addition, climate change may affect extreme cold weather events. Risks to nuclear power plants from these hazards include loss of offsite power, damage to systems and equipment, and diminished cooling capacity, potentially resulting in reduced operations or plant shutdowns.Examples of Natural Hazards that May Pose Risks to Nuclear Power Plants&nbsp;The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) addresses risks to the safety of nuclear power plants, including risks from natural hazards, in its licensing and oversight processes. Following the tsunami that led to the 2011 accident at Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, NRC took additional actions to address risks from natural hazards. These include requiring safety margins in reactor designs, measures to prevent radioactive releases should a natural hazard event exceed what a plant was designed to withstand, and maintenance of backup equipment related to safety functions.However, NRC's actions to address risks from natural hazards do not fully consider potential climate change effects. For example, NRC primarily uses historical data in its licensing and oversight processes rather than climate projections data. NRC officials GAO interviewed said they believe their current processes provide an adequate margin of safety to address climate risks. However, NRC has not conducted an assessment to demonstrate that this is the case. Assessing its processes to determine whether they adequately address the potential for increased risks from climate change would help ensure NRC fully considers risks to existing and proposed plants. Specifically, identifying any gaps in its processes and developing a plan to address them, including by using climate projections data, would help ensure that NRC adopts a more comprehensive approach for assessing risks and is better able to fulfill its mission to protect public health and safety.Why GAO Did This StudyNRC licenses and regulates the use of nuclear energy to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment. Like all energy infrastructure, nuclear power plants can be affected by disruptions from natural hazards, some of which are likely to be exacerbated by climate change. Most commercial nuclear plants in the United States were built in the 1960s and 1970s, and weather patterns and climate-related risks to these plants have changed since their construction.GAO was asked to review the climate resilience of energy infrastructure. This report examines (1) how climate change is expected to affect nuclear power plants and (2) NRC actions to address risks to nuclear power plants from climate change. GAO analyzed available federal data and reviewed regulations, agency documents, and relevant literature. GAO interviewed officials from federal agencies, including NRC, the Department of Energy, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and knowledgeable stakeholders from industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations. GAO also conducted site visits to two plants.
- Offshore Oil and Gas: Interior Needs to Improve Decommissioning Enforcement and Mitigate Related Risks What GAO FoundThe Department of the Interior's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) does not effectively ensure that industry operators meet decommissioning deadlines for offshore wells and platforms at the end of their useful lives. BSEE's administrative enforcement tools and its use of them are ineffective at incentivizing noncompliant operators—for example, citations for regulatory violations and orders to comply are essentially warnings. BSEE rarely takes more punitive actions such as issuing civil penalty fines, which can take years, or disqualifying operators, which has unclear trigger criteria. Long-standing uncertainties in the enforceability of some deadlines also undermine BSEE's effectiveness for idle infrastructure on active leases and end-of-lease infrastructure in the Pacific. These enforcement issues have contributed to widespread decommissioning delays that have grown into a substantial backlog. For example, for Gulf leases that ended in 2010 through 2022, operators missed BSEE's 1-year decommissioning deadline for more than 40 percent of wells and 50 percent of platforms—many of which still have not been decommissioned. Over 75 percent of end-of-lease and idle infrastructure in the Gulf was overdue under BSEE's deadlines as of June 2023—over 2,700 wells and 500 platforms.End-of-Lease and Idle Offshore Wells and Platforms Overdue for Decommissioning in the Gulf of Mexico Moreover, Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) does not effectively assure that operators have the financial and technical capacity to meet decommissioning obligations in advance of potential delays, bankruptcies, or other defaults. Specifically, BOEM held about $3.5 billion in supplemental bonds to cover between $40 billion and $70 billion in total estimated decommissioning costs as of June 2023. As a result, the federal government remains exposed to billions of dollars in financial risks from decommissioning liabilities if operators do not meet their obligations. BOEM has been working for over a decade on proposals to better address these risks but has not finalized changes in its approach. Additionally, BOEM has limited operator qualification standards that do not address decommissioning capacity or consider any past issues with meeting these obligations safely and timely.Interior could better enforce decommissioning deadlines and mitigate the safety, environmental, and financial risks that unmet decommissioning obligations pose by ensuring BSEE and BOEM prioritize completing planned actions. Additionally, given the extended duration and magnitude of these issues and insufficient progress in Interior's efforts to address them, congressional oversight or direction may be warranted to better limit the growing scale of related risks.Why GAO Did This StudySince the 1940s, the offshore oil and gas industry has installed more than 55,000 wells and 7,000 platforms on the outer continental shelf, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico. Interior is responsible for enforcing requirements for industry operators to safely decommission this infrastructure at the end of its useful life within deadlines set by regulations.Delayed decommissioning increases environmental, safety, and financial risks. Over time, infrastructure becomes increasingly vulnerable to damage and deterioration from storms and corrosion, which can topple platforms, cause oil spills, and make decommissioning more expensive and dangerous. The federal government may become liable for these costs if industry defaults on its obligations.GAO was asked to review Interior's oversight of offshore decommissioning. This report examines Interior's effectiveness in (1) enforcing decommissioning deadlines and (2) assuring industry capacity to meet them. GAO reviewed decommissioning regulations, procedures, guidance, and data; interviewed agency officials; and obtained perspectives from industry and environmental groups.
- Oil and Gas Pipelines: Agencies Should Improve Oversight of Decommissioning What GAO FoundGathering pipelines carry natural gas, crude oil, and other hazardous liquids from production wells to processing facilities, refineries, and transmission pipelines. Pipeline operators should decommission gathering lines after oil and gas production has ended to ensure any remaining gathering lines are safe and to restore the land to its natural state. If operators do not decommission gathering lines properly or in a timely manner, they could pose various safety and environmental risks, including spills, emissions, and explosions. For example, in 2017, homeowners accidentally struck an improperly decommissioned gathering line on their property, causing an explosion that killed two people and injured two others.Examples of Gathering Lines and Associated InfrastructureAgency efforts to ensure proper decommissioning may be hindered by insufficient bonding, data limitations, and ambiguous requirements. For example, the Bureau of Land Management has detailed data for the more than 95,000 wells on federal leases, but its databases do not include any data for the gathering lines associated with those wells.While agencies have taken steps to improve the data they have on gathering lines, those steps have been ad hoc. None of the agencies has a documented plan to ensure they are collecting and maintaining the data needed to oversee decommissioning activities. Developing a plan with a timeline for implementing data improvement efforts would provide management the assurance that officials are collecting and maintaining the data needed to oversee decommissioning. Specifically, a documented plan would identify what data are needed, potential sources for the data, timelines to collect or acquire the data, and how best to maintain the data over time, ensuring that they remain current and accessible.The federal government has previously stepped in to decommission orphaned gathering lines—lines without an identifiable responsible party. However, agencies have limited resources. While the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided additional funding, agencies told us that the act's funding will not be sufficient to decommission all orphaned infrastructure. For example, Forest Service officials said that even if all of the $250 million in the act were provided solely to Forest Service, those funds would allow for decommissioning of only 5 percent to 10 percent of the known and expected orphaned infrastructure on Forest Service lands.Agencies need to analyze the risks associated with gathering lines they oversee. For the four agencies, we found that only the National Park Service has assessed the potential risks of gathering lines it oversees. Assessing risks would allow agencies to adequately prioritize those gathering lines that pose the greatest safety, environmental, or fiscal risks for either oversight attention if lines are active, or decommissioning if lines are orphaned.Why GAO Did This StudyOil and gas pipeline operators have installed at least 384,000 miles of onshore gathering lines across the United States. We were asked to review issues related to decommissioning oil and gas gathering lines on federal lands. This report examines the risks associated with gathering lines that are not decommissioned properly or in a timely manner and how agencies oversee decommissioning of gathering lines on federal lands.We reviewed relevant laws, regulations, policies, and guidance related to overseeing decommissioning pipelines. We also conducted a literature search to assess risks associated with improper decommissioning. We interviewed agency headquarters and field office officials, as well as state agency officials, representatives from the oil and gas industry, environmental advocacy groups, and pipeline safety organizations.
- Low-Dose Radiation: Agency Leadership and Collaboration Are Needed to Set the Direction of Future Research What GAO FoundIn 2018, Congress directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to carry out a research program on low-dose radiation and in 2020, directed DOE to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) to develop a research agenda for that program. The National Academies issued a report in June 2022 with recommendations and priorities for a research program to better assess health effects of low-dose radiation (see figure).DOE and three selected agencies involved in low-dose radiation research have some ongoing and planned efforts that can help address the findings and recommendations of the June 2022 report. DOE's Office of Environment, Health, Safety, and Security has long supported research on the health of people exposed to low-dose radiation. In addition, DOE's Office of Science resumed some low-dose radiation research activities in 2020 after ending its previous research program in 2016. The new research is focused on using artificial intelligence (AI) to better understand low-dose radiation biology. DOE invested $22.3 million in this research in fiscal years 2020 through 2023. One of the funded projects uses AI to build a framework for estimating cancer risk based on long-term exposure to radiation. Other selected agencies continue to support and conduct research that generally aligns with agency specific missions, such as understanding cancer risk in people exposed to radiation and promoting occupational safety and health.Figure: Human Health Effects of Low-Dose Exposure to Ionizing RadiationNote: Low-dose radiation is a dose of less than 100 millisieverts (mSv). For details see fig. 1 in GAO-24-106317.DOE's Office of Science—the sponsor of the National Academies report—has taken some steps in response to the report. According to DOE, its efforts—including plans to apply AI—are relevant to three of the 11 research priorities from the National Academies report. Currently, DOE does not have plans to expand its research to address the other priorities. However, DOE is seeking input from its advisory committee by spring 2024 on the potential scope of a program. Nevertheless, Office of Science officials told GAO that a low-dose radiation research program is not a priority because, among other reasons, the research might not reduce knowledge gaps enough to lead to changes in radiation protection regulations.In 2020, Congress directed DOE to engage with other federal agencies as part of its low-dose radiation research program. Additionally, the National Academies called for coordination across federal agencies that carry out low-dose radiation research. However, DOE's Office of Science has not led a coordinated response to the National Academies report or worked with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) or another agency to do so. By taking a leadership role for an interagency low-dose radiation research program or taking steps to initiate efforts with another agency, DOE could help to resolve uncertainty with low-dose radiation research in the United States.Why GAO Did This StudyIonizing radiation comes from both natural sources and medical, commercial, and industrial activities. Prior research has not clearly identified how low doses of such radiation affect the health of millions of people exposed in various settings. The 2022 National Academies report found that a coordinated, multidisciplinary low-dose radiation research program could enable a better assessment of current risk estimates.Congress included a provision in statute for GAO to review the activities of DOE's low-dose radiation research program. This report addresses the extent to which (1) DOE and selected agencies have efforts that can help address the findings and recommendations of the National Academies report and (2) DOE has developed a plan for addressing the findings and implementing the recommendations of the report.GAO analyzed documents from DOE and three other agencies that fund or conduct low-dose radiation research and interviewed agency officials involved in low-dose radiation research, as well as officials from OSTP. GAO compared DOE's efforts to leading practices on interagency collaboration.
- Nuclear Materials: DOE Plans for Savannah River Site's H-Canyon Facility What GAO FoundThe Department of Energy (DOE) uses Savannah River Site's H-Canyon facility primarily to process a significant amount of nuclear materials not readily disposable in their existing forms. DOE's Office of Environmental Management manages H-Canyon, and a contractor operates it.H-Canyon processes spent nuclear fuel—used fuel removed from nuclear reactors—and other materials from DOE and other federal programs. The resulting waste solution enters Savannah River Site's liquid waste system for further processing and disposal or storage. As part of its environmental cleanup plans, the Office of Environmental Management plans to close parts of the site's liquid waste system in the late 2030s.Streamlined Processing of Nuclear Materials in the Savannah River Site’s H-Canyon  DOE has memorandums of agreement or similar written agreements to help facilitate collaboration between the Office of Environmental Management and some of the federal programs that rely on H-Canyon, such as DOE's Office of Science. However, it does not have agreements with DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology for ongoing mission needs. Documenting the Office of Environmental Management's agreements with all programs that rely on H-Canyon in written agreements would help ensure that all roles, responsibilities, and time frames are understood. It would also better align all components of H-Canyon's work and provide a solid basis on which to plan next steps for mid- and long-term operation of the facility. DOE has already begun these planning efforts.Key nuclear and facility safety requirements for H-Canyon are intended to protect workers, the public, and the environment from consequences associated with an accident at the facility. The contractor operating H-Canyon implements safety requirements. The Office of Environmental Management assesses safety implementation through planned and unplanned safety assessments. The office engages with independent entities that also assess safety at H-Canyon.Annual contractor costs to operate H-Canyon averaged just over $154 million, adjusted for inflation, from fiscal years 2013 through 2023. Factors affecting costs include the amount of nuclear material processed. The Office of Environmental Management officials and contractor representatives at the Savannah River Site said they plan to keep future costs relatively stable through fiscal year 2034. They expect decreased cost estimates during fiscal years 2035 to 2037 due to concluding H-Canyon's missions. DOE has two ongoing planning efforts for processing and managing spent nuclear fuel and other materials after H-Canyon's current missions end.Why GAO Did This StudySavannah River Site's H-Canyon is the sole chemical separations facility in the U.S. H-Canyon is integral to DOE's disposition of nuclear materials sourced from across the DOE complex that are unstable and pose risks to safety, health, and the environment. In April 2022, DOE announced plans to accelerate processing nuclear materials in H-Canyon to better align with some of the Office of Environmental Management's environmental cleanup plans for the Savannah River Site that are set to conclude in the late 2030s.Senate Report 117-130 includes a provision for GAO to assess aspects of H-Canyon. This report provides information on H-Canyon's current missions, integration of plans to support these missions, key safety requirements, and operating costs.GAO assessed documents and data related to the integration of plans for H-Canyon operations, as well as the safety and cost of H-Canyon. GAO visited the Savannah River Site to better understand H-Canyon's role in nuclear materials and spent fuel disposition. GAO interviewed federal officials—such as from DOE programs, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology—and contractor representatives.
- High-Risk Radioactive Material: Opportunities Exist to Improve the Security of Sources No Longer in Use What GAO FoundLicensees of high-risk radioactive sources may delay disposing of sources that are in their possession but no longer in use (i.e., disused) for a variety of reasons. For example, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) does not require licensees to dispose of radioactive sources unless a licensee is terminating all activities under its license at specific locations. In addition, some high-risk sources containing radioactive materials that have a long life cycle, including cesium-137 and americium-241, have limited disposal pathways that may require government assistance or may not have a viable disposal pathway at all. Specifically, sources used in the oil and gas industry that contain americium-241 of foreign origin currently have no permanent disposal pathway, leaving them vulnerable to loss or abandonment.Disused High-Risk Radioactive Sources at a Source Processing FacilityGAO identified leading practices supported by key entities—such as the International Atomic Energy Agency—that are not reflected in NRC requirements and could help address some disposal challenges. These practices include tracking sources, imposing limits and fees on possession, or collecting financial assurances at the time a source is purchased to offset later disposal costs. Assessing adoption of these leading practices nationwide may more broadly incentivize timely disposal, potentially reduce overall cost to the government, and reduce the risk that radioactive sources could be used in a dirty bomb.Why GAO Did This StudyRadioactive sources are commonly used for medical, industrial, and research purposes. However, these materials can be harmful and dangerous, if used improperly.NRC and states to which it has delegated authority issue licenses for the possession and use of radioactive sources. These entities regulate disposal facilities that can accept certain sources and waste. Several federal programs support disposal of some sources, but some licensees still hold onto sources beyond their useful lives. Doing so increases the risk that sources could be orphaned and misused, for example, in a dirty bomb.House Report 117-118 accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 includes a provision for GAO to review the disposition of radioactive sources. This report examines (1) the factors that contribute to licensees delaying disposal of disused high-risk radioactive sources, and (2) leading practices that, if implemented, could help address challenges related to the disposal of some disused radioactive sources. GAO reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and key organizations' documents on leading practices. GAO also interviewed agency and industry officials and conducted site visits.
- Nuclear Waste Cleanup: Army Corps Could Benefit from Following Leading Practices for Program Management for Contaminated Sites What GAO FoundThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) reported $2.6 billion in environmental liabilities in fiscal year 2022 for the estimated future costs to investigate and clean up contamination under its Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). Of the 19 active sites in the program, four sites with complicated cleanup remedies or large amounts of contamination make up about three-quarters of this estimate. However, Corps officials said that FUSRAP's environmental liability has the potential to be affected by uncertainties, such as the discovery of additional contamination after completing a cost estimate for remediation. Since 2016, FUSRAP's environmental liability has risen by nearly $1 billion, an increase that officials attribute to uncertainties, along with inflation.Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program Sites in St. Louis, Missouri, and Lockport, New York, Being Cleaned up by the U.S. Army Corps of EngineersGAO's review of FUSRAP documents found that the Corps minimally met selected leading practices for program management related to risk management and cost estimating, among other things. For example:Programs should identify risks and opportunities, document their characteristics, and prepare to manage them.  The Corps does not have a documented program-level risk management process for FUSRAP. A program-level risk management process could help officials identify and manage risks that can affect multiple projects, such as limited staffing in areas like procurement, which officials said can extend some projects' timelines.	Programs should have an integrated life cycle cost estimate that is comprehensive.  Corps officials said that they consider FUSRAP's environmental liability estimate to be the program's life cycle cost estimate. However, the environmental liability estimate does not include all costs and does not track costs from previous years. Having an integrated life cycle cost estimate that includes all program costs could enhance FUSRAP management's ability to make risk-informed decisions on how to manage and allocate its resources.Corps officials said that the agency's standard business practices do not require FUSRAP to adhere to some of the leading practices at the program level. Although not required, following these and other leading practices would better position the Corps to oversee and manage FUSRAP.Why GAO Did This StudyAtomic energy activities supported by the federal government generated large amounts of radioactive and hazardous waste over several decades of nuclear weapons production and energy research following World War II. This waste has contaminated soil, groundwater, and structures at sites across the country, posing potential risks to human health and the environment. The Corps is responsible for cleaning up or controlling contamination at some of these sites through FUSRAP.GAO was asked to provide information about the Corps' efforts to clean up contamination under FUSRAP. This report, among other things, (1) describes the reported environmental liabilities associated with active FUSRAP sites and uncertainties around those estimates and (2) examines the extent to which FUSRAP meets leading practices for program management.GAO reviewed legal requirements, federal accounting standards, agency documents, and leading program management practices; analyzed data on the Corps' cleanup expenditures and total cost estimates; and interviewed agency officials.
- Nuclear Power: NRC Needs to Take Additional Actions to Prepare to License Advanced Reactors What GAO FoundThe Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has taken several actions to modify its licensing process to include advanced nuclear reactors—nuclear fission reactors that may offer significant improvements over the most recent generation of nuclear fission reactors and may involve first-of-a-kind designs. For example, NRC reorganized its offices responsible for licensing advanced reactors and established dedicated review teams to provide continuity of staff throughout the review of an advanced reactor license application. NRC also issued a regulatory roadmap to help advanced reactor developers navigate the agency's licensing process. Furthermore, NRC has engaged with the nuclear industry to develop a technology-inclusive, risk-informed, and performance-based approach for assessing advanced reactor applications. NRC has also cooperated with the Department of Energy to share technical expertise and has incorporated feedback from several federal agencies and other stakeholders regarding modifications to its licensing process.Examples of Advanced Nuclear Reactor Sizes and OutputSome of the modifications NRC made to its licensing process have better prepared the agency to review advanced reactors. However, the modifications do not fully address ongoing challenges related to hiring and retaining the staff necessary to license advanced reactors. NRC analyzes its workforce annually and has implemented several measures to address its estimated workforce shortfalls, such as offering recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives for hard-to-fill positions. NRC recognizes its staffing limitations, recruitment challenges, and the expected influx of advanced reactor applications. However, NRC has not evaluated its efforts to address staffing gaps. NRC does not know the extent to which its recruitment strategies and incentives have had a positive effect on hiring and retention because the agency does not have benchmarks to assess their effectiveness. Without measures and benchmarks to assess its recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives and recruitment strategies, NRC is unable to determine the effectiveness of its efforts to ensure that it has sufficient numbers of knowledgeable staff needed to conduct licensing reviews in the coming years.Why GAO Did This StudyOur nation's demand for energy is expected to grow in the coming decades. To address this demand, Congress has supported the development of advanced nuclear reactors. NRC officials anticipate receiving a significant increase in the number of applications for advanced reactors in the next several years. However, because NRC's regulations and licensing processes have been used to evaluate existing nuclear reactor technologies, NRC is in the process of making changes to license advanced reactors.GAO was asked to review NRC's preparedness to review applications for advanced nuclear reactors. This report examines (1) NRC's actions to modify its licensing process to include advanced reactors and (2) the extent to which modifications to NRC's licensing process have prepared the agency to review advanced reactors. GAO reviewed statutes, NRC regulations and guidance; analyzed NRC documentation on the modifications to its licensing process; interviewed NRC officials; and interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 17 stakeholders.
- Electricity Grid: DOE Could Better Support Industry Efforts to Ensure Adequate Transformer Reserves What GAO FoundElectric utilities and the Department of Energy (DOE) face several challenges to ensuring that large power transformers (LPT)—both in use and in reserve—are available in adequate numbers to maintain a resilient electricity grid. Utilities identified supply chain constraints as the most pressing challenge, including long (and increasing) manufacturing lead times, limited manufacturing capacity, and labor and material shortages. Moreover, the costs of purchasing and transporting LPTs prevents some utilities from keeping spares. For example, utilities reported that LPTs can cost as high as $10 million to purchase and hundreds of thousands of dollars to move. Furthermore, federal and industry stakeholders stated that establishing a federally owned inventory of transformers would face additional challenges (such as lack of standardization) and could aggravate existing supply chain constraints.Example of a Large Power Transformer at a Substation DOE has identified options for addressing the supply chain challenges that affect utilities' ability to ensure adequate reserves but has not developed plans that specify how to implement these options. For example, in 2022, DOE issued a report and gathered information from industry on how the Defense Production Act could be used to expand domestic transformer manufacturing capacity. However, DOE officials have not identified actionable objectives, or time frames, for these efforts. Furthermore, a 2017 DOE report recommended supporting industry sharing efforts to ensure adequate reserves by encouraging the participation of smaller, resource-constrained utilities in such efforts. However, DOE does not have a plan for operationalizing such support. Without plans to guide DOE's efforts to address supply chain challenges and to facilitate solutions to ensure adequate reserves, these efforts could stall or remain incomplete, leaving critical grid infrastructure vulnerable.Why GAO Did This StudyRobust electricity grid infrastructure is critical to the nation's economic, energy, and national security. Transformers serve a critical function on the electricity grid, managing voltage for efficient power transmission and distribution. Transformers are a source of grid vulnerability, susceptible to natural disasters and cyber and physical threats. Federal agencies such as DOE play an advisory, coordinating, and research role in the effort to ensure adequate transformer reserves.Congress included a provision in statute for GAO to review issues related to certain disasters. This report examines (1) challenges to ensuring adequate transformer reserves and (2) the extent to which federal and industry stakeholders have taken steps to ensure adequate transformer reserves. For this report, GAO examined agency and industry actions; reviewed relevant reports, policies, and documents; and interviewed federal and industry officials.
- Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Energy What GAO FoundIn June 2022, GAO identified 26 priority recommendations for the Department of Energy (DOE). Since then, DOE has implemented six of those recommendations by, among other things, completing its analysis of options for handling excess space at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. GAO de-prioritized one recommendation, and it remains open.In May 2023, GAO identified nine additional priority recommendations for DOE, bringing the total number to 30. These recommendations involve the following areas:improving project, program, and portfolio management;	improving contract management;	enhancing energy reliability, security, and resilience;	addressing nuclear modernization challenges;	addressing DOE's environmental and disposal liability;	addressing insider threats and cybersecurity; and	addressing worker protections.DOE's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations.Why GAO Did This StudyPriority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or ensure that programs comply with laws and that funds are legally spent, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations.For more information, contact Mark Gaffigan at (202) 512-3841 or Gaffiganm@gao.gov.
- Sustainable Aviation Fuel: Agencies Should Track Progress Toward Ambitious Federal Goals [Reissued with Revisions May 17, 2023] What GAO FoundSustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is alternative jet fuel made from renewable and waste feedstocks that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a lifecycle basis. SAF production and use in the U.S. has increased in recent years; this fuel is now used by airlines at two major commercial airports in California. While U.S. production reached 15.8 million gallons in 2022, it accounted for less than 0.1 percent of the total jet fuel used by major U.S. airlines (see table). This also falls well below the previous Federal Aviation Administration goal for U.S. airlines to use 1 billion gallons of SAF per year by 2018.Comparison of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) Produced and Jet Fuel Consumed by Major U.S. Airlines by yearMillions of gallons					Year									SAF produced									Jet fuel consumed by major U.S. airlines								2016									1.9									17,138								2017									1.7									17,662								2018									1.8									18,325								2019									2.4									18,746								2020									4.6									11,067								2021									5.1									14,617								2022									15.8									17,510					Source: Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Transportation Statistics. | GAO-23-105300Factors driving the SAF market include airlines' interest in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and federal and California state policy incentives. Airlines have identified SAF as the most promising near-term technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and have signaled their interest by entering into agreements for future SAF deliveries. In addition, federal and California policy incentives have helped offset the high cost of SAF according to stakeholders. The high price of SAF compared to conventional jet fuel is a key factor inhibiting increased production and use. Other factors inhibiting market growth include the long time frames and high costs of developing new SAF production facilities. It remains to be seen how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which includes new SAF tax credits, will affect the market.Since 2007, federal agencies including the U.S. Departments of Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture have sponsored research and provided direct financial support for SAF production. In September 2022, these agencies published a roadmap outlining actions to support the recent White House Grand Challenge goals of producing 3 billion gallons of SAF by 2030 and 35 billion gallons by 2050. However, the roadmap does not establish performance measures to monitor, evaluate, and report the results of these actions. Without performance measures, the agencies are not well positioned to evaluate the effectiveness of federal government actions to meet the Grand Challenge goals. In contrast, establishing and using such measures can identify progress on the extent to which SAF is contributing to emission reductions.Why GAO Did This StudyTo reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the aviation sector, the White House announced a SAF Grand Challenge in September 2021. The Grand Challenge goal is to supply 3 billion gallons of SAF per year by 2030 and 100 percent of expected domestic commercial jet fuel use by 2050.GAO was asked to review the federal role in SAF. This report (1) discusses the state of SAF production and use for the U.S. commercial aviation industry and factors shaping this market, and (2) identifies how federal agencies have supported SAF and assesses how they will monitor progress toward Grand Challenge goals.GAO reviewed data on SAF production and conventional jet fuel use from 2016 to 2022. GAO reviewed Grand Challenge documents and interviewed officials from four agencies selected based on their roles in SAF and interagency efforts. GAO interviewed 43 stakeholders on a range of SAF issues. Selected stakeholders included airlines, SAF producers, airports, industry associations, environmental organizations, and other groups.
- Electric Vehicle Infrastructure: USPS Should Plan for Potential Workplace Charging What GAO FoundThe United States Postal Service's (USPS) facilities, such as post offices, could potentially provide the public and postal employees with electric vehicle chargers. For example, publicly-accessible chargers could serve community members without a charger at their home. Additionally, five of the 13 stakeholders GAO interviewed said employees would most benefit from chargers at USPS facilities, given the time available to charge a personal vehicle during a work shift.However, hosting chargers for the general public would pose significant challenges and provide relatively few benefits to USPS, according to USPS officials and stakeholders whom GAO interviewed. For example, USPS officials said hosting public chargers could be at odds with USPS's goal of moving customers in and out of a facility quickly. Moreover, USPS is generally prohibited from offering nonpostal services, and officials said addressing challenges could require significant resources. In light of these and other challenges, USPS has not pursued chargers for the general public. Stakeholders GAO interviewed also recognized these challenges, but a few noted potential benefits for USPS, including improving USPS's reputation on environmental issues and enhancing its relevance.USPS is preparing to introduce electric vehicles into its delivery fleet and is planning to install chargers for these fleet vehicles. However, USPS has not fully incorporated the potential for employee workplace charging into these plans. USPS has taken some initial steps to explore the potential for employees to charge their own vehicles at work. These steps include designating leadership and surveying some employees on their interest. USPS officials said there are complex issues USPS would need to resolve before it could establish a workplace charging program, such as developing policies and potentially negotiating work rules with multiple employee organizations. However, the facility assessments USPS has developed in planning to install fleet chargers have not examined the potential for sharing fleet chargers with employees, or for installing additional chargers for employees' use. Department of Energy (DOE) guidance encourages agencies to plan for long-term needs when installing chargers. Incorporating the potential need for workplace charging into current planning activities could spare USPS the expense of modifying facilities in the future.Illustration of a Hypothetical USPS Facility Prepared for Electric Vehicle Chargers to Serve Postal Delivery Vehicles and Potential Additional Users in the FutureWhy GAO Did This StudyThe federal government is poised to invest billions of dollars in public chargers. Given the number and location of USPS facilities, some stakeholders and policymakers have suggested that public chargers at postal facilities could help advance federal efforts.GAO was asked to determine the feasibility of using USPS facilities to host public chargers. This report, among other things, (1) describes the groups that might use these chargers, (2) describes the potential benefits and challenges to USPS of hosting chargers, and (3) examines the extent to which USPS has considered options for workplace charging at its facilities as it moves to electrify some of its delivery fleet.GAO conducted a literature review, reviewed charger site-selection guides, and analyzed USPS facility data. GAO also interviewed USPS officials as well as 13 federal and private-sector stakeholders, including DOE and industry associations, selected based on factors such as their engagement in electric vehicle charging issues. GAO compared USPS's actions to consider workplace charging with applicable guidance, such as from DOE.
- Utility-Scale Energy Storage: Technologies and Challenges for an Evolving Grid What GAO FoundTechnologies to store energy at the utility-scale could help improve grid reliability, reduce costs, and promote the increased adoption of variable renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. Energy storage technology use has increased along with solar and wind energy. Several storage technologies are in use on the U.S. grid, including pumped hydroelectric storage, batteries, compressed air, and flywheels (see figure). Pumped hydroelectric and compressed air energy storage can be used to store excess energy for applications requiring 10 or more hours of storage. Lithium-ion batteries and flywheels are used for shorter-duration applications such as keeping the grid stable by quickly absorbing or discharging electricity to match demand. Flow batteries represent a small fraction of total energy storage capacity and could be used for applications requiring 10 or more hours of storage. Metal-air batteries are being evaluated for applications requiring 10 or more hours of storage.Pumped Hydroelectric (left) and Lithium-Ion Battery (right) Energy Storage TechnologiesEnergy storage technologies face multiple challenges, including:Planning. Planning is needed to integrate storage technologies with the existing grid. However, accurate projections of each technology’s costs and benefits could be difficult to quantify. Further, refinement of costs, benefits, and other data are needed to inform the planning process.	Regulation. Rules and regulations vary across regions and states, which forces energy storage project developers to navigate a patchwork of potential markets. Developers that want to deploy storage across multiple markets may need to conduct separate analyses to determine each region’s regulatory outlook and profit potential.	Standardization. Codes and standards may need revising and must keep pace with maturing technologies to minimize public safety and welfare risks. However, the technology’s evolution and deployment is outpacing codes and standards development. As a result, entities seeking to deploy new technologies may face challenges applying existing codes and standards to new technologies.	Valuation. Realizing the potential of energy storage technologies may depend on the ability to value investments. For example, profit potential can vary because regions and states value storage differently, reflecting local market rules and regulations.GAO developed six high-level policy options in response to these challenges. These policy options are provided to inform policymakers of potential actions to address the policy challenges identified in this technology assessment. They identify possible actions by policymakers, which include Congress, federal agencies, state and local governments, academic and research institutions, and industry. The status quo option illustrates a scenario in which policymakers do not intervene with ongoing efforts.Policy Options to Address Challenges to Utility-Scale Energy StoragePolicy options and implementation approaches			Opportunities			Considerations					Status quo (report p. 48)			Policymakers could maintain the status quo through:			Tax credits and funding				Research and development				Previous plans and programs by states would continue, including actions for energy storage.									The federal government has various national capabilities to support energy storage technology incentives and demonstration.				DOE support for storage research and development would continue.									Some policymakers may lack sufficient information to make decisions on evolving storage capabilities.				Storage development, deployment, and use could be left dependent on forces outside policymakers’ control.								Integration (report p. 50)			Policymakers could include clear goals and next steps in plans to help integrate storage, by:			Establishing roadmaps, based on storage costs and benefits				Assessing storage in plans									Storage planning could help policymakers identify and remove barriers to energy storage deployment.				Plans could increase investors’ confidence and help them determine storage investments.									Plans that seek to alter conventional grid planning could be difficult to execute.				Stakeholders have set different goals for low-carbon electric generation.				Planning depends on factors such as location suitability; not every technology is suited for every location.								Regulation (report p. 52)			Policymakers could revise and enact rules and requirements for how storage is defined, used, or owned by:			Identifying market barriers				Establishing targets or mandates				Modernizing ownership models									Could promote energy storage technologies by improving grid efficiency while reducing costs for all customers.				Could help lower costs and reduce the timeline for interconnection.				Could accelerate permit approval timelines.									Regulations differ across states, which could make finding the right regulatory model to achieve energy goals a challenge.				Integrating new technologies with conventional grid planning can be challenging.				Changes to rules and regulations could exclude certain technologies.								Standardization (report p. 54)			Policymakers could update or create new codes and standards and provide education on storage safety risks.									Could help stakeholders operate storage systems more safely.				Standards placed into regulations could help address storage performance requirements.									Codes and standards take time to develop and could be outdated if not adopted in a timely manner.				Standards may be ambiguous, which could make it difficult to design storage systems.								Support manufacturing and adoption (report p. 56)			Policymakers could support actions to help energy storage manufacturing and adoption challenges by:			Enacting battery reuse and recycling policies				Conducting outreach				Targeting activities to support storage development and deployment									Reuse and recycling policies could increase the recovery of products and materials.				Stakeholder outreach and informational programs could help overcome awareness and familiarity challenges.				Federal and state financial support for longer-duration energy storage development and demonstration could be important in a future electricity system powered by wind and solar generation.									Incentives and motivation to invest in new recycling applications is limited.				Funding may fluctuate year to year or favor short-term projects.				Development of new systems could be difficult because of engineering and economic uncertainty, particularly for longer-duration storage.				Low-cost, flexible natural gas generation could make it more difficult for new pumped hydroelectric facilities to compete.								Provide Incentives (report p. 58)			Policymakers could create mechanisms to incentivize storage deployment, by:			Providing incentives, such as loan guarantees or tax credits				Considering policies to encourage the capture of multiple revenue streams									Financial incentives could help developers and companies develop storage technologies.				Technologies with longer durations may benefit from policies that help industry to capture their full value.									Incentives could lead to unintended outcomes for governments or developers, and some stakeholders may not believe they are necessary.				Technology value varies by region, which may affect storage incentives, valuation, and revenue streams.				Environmental and social costs and benefits could be difficult to quantify.				Low-cost, flexible natural gas generation could make it more difficult for new pumped hydroelectric facilities to compete.					Source: GAO. &nbsp;| &nbsp;GAO-23-105583Why GAO Did This StudyThe U.S. electricity grid connects more than 11,000 power plants with around 158 million residential, commercial, and other consumers. Energy storage technologies have the potential to enable several improvements to the grid, such as reducing costs and improving reliability. They could also enable the growth of solar and wind energy generation.GAO conducted a technology assessment on (1) technologies that could be used to capture energy for later use within the electricity grid, (2) challenges that could impact energy storage technologies and their use on the grid, and (3) policy options that could help address energy storage challenges.To address these objectives, GAO reviewed agency documents and other literature; interviewed government, industry, academic, and power company representatives; conducted site visits; and convened a virtual meeting of experts in collaboration with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. GAO is identifying policy options in this report (see p. 2).For more information, contact Brian Bothwell at (202) 512-6888 or bothwellb@gao.gov.
- Fusion Energy: Potentially Transformative Technology Still Faces Fundamental Challenges What GAO FoundNuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun and other stars, could produce electric power without carbon emissions, long-lived nuclear waste, or risk of meltdowns. Researchers and companies are pursuing many different concepts for fusion energy and have reported recent progress, such as the development of high-temperature superconducting magnets that could make fusion devices much more compact. Also, in 2022, an experiment at the National Ignition Facility achieved a key scientific milestone, generating more energy from a fusion reaction than the amount of direct energy spent to start the reaction.National Ignition FacilityHowever, several challenges must be overcome to achieve commercial fusion, and stakeholders’ projections of this timeline range from 10 years to several decades. One key scientific challenge is in the physics of plasmas, the state of matter needed for fusion. Researchers do not fully understand the behavior of burning plasmas, those whose main source of heat is from the fusion reaction itself rather than an external source. Researchers have made advancements in this area but lack sufficient experimental data to validate their simulations. One key engineering challenge is the development of materials that can withstand fusion conditions for decades, such as extreme heat and neutron damage, and no facility exists where materials can be fully tested. More generally, the task of extracting energy from fusion to provide an economical source of electric power presents several complex systems engineering problems that have yet to be solved.Public and private sector misalignments, regulatory uncertainty, and other factors also present challenges to fusion energy development. One area of misalignment is research priorities. Public sector efforts prioritize basic science, but fusion energy development requires an additional emphasis on technology and engineering research. Another factor is regulatory uncertainty, which could slow development of fusion energy, although developing appropriate regulations to ensure safety without constraining development is difficult. Doing so may require significant public engagement, but little is known about public perception of fusion energy in the U.S.&nbsp;GAO developed four policy options that could help address these challenges or enhance the benefits of fusion energy. These policy options are provided to inform potential actions to address the public policy challenges identified in this technology assessment. They identify possible actions by policymakers, which include legislative bodies, government agencies, academia, industry, and other groups. See below for a summary of the policy options and relevant opportunities and considerations.Policy Options to Help Address Challenges or Enhance Benefits of Fusion Energy&nbsp;			Opportunities			Considerations		Sustain current efforts (report p. 32)						Some challenges described in this report may be addressed by current efforts.				Could allow policymakers to observe and evaluate the impact of existing efforts, which could limit risk and save money.									Current efforts may not address all challenges described in this report.				Current efforts alone may delay or inhibit the development of fusion energy, which could result in forgone benefits or negative impacts, such as to the environment.								Align public and private efforts (report p. 33)			&nbsp;			Implementation approaches:			&nbsp;			Align programs, missions, and organizational structures with fusion energy development goals			&nbsp;			Expand use of public private partnerships			&nbsp;			Reduce barriers to collaboration			&nbsp;			Leverage international coordination									Could accelerate the demonstration and commercialization of fusion energy by enhancing research on materials, technology, and engineering needs.				Could leverage strengths across sectors and expand programs that, according to experts and interviewees, are underused and have been effective in advancing fusion energy development.				Standardized research and development agreements could accelerate research, encourage knowledge sharing between organizations and countries, and reduce time-intensive negotiation.									Aligning public and private efforts can be time intensive and may require additional resources or legislative action, according to experts.				To achieve fusion energy development timeline goals, policymakers may need to pursue parallel efforts and take more risks, which could incur greater costs.				Could require additional resources or reallocation of existing resources from other programs.								Build shared assets for fusion energy (report p. 34)			&nbsp;			Implementation approaches:			&nbsp;			Support facilities that address scientific and engineering challenges			&nbsp;			Support workforce development			&nbsp;			Assess sources of critical supplies and manufacturing capabilities									Could help fill critical research gaps on the path to fusion energy commercialization.				Could help ensure fusion energy development is not limited by critical workforce or supply shortages.									Test facilities require significant investment and years to build and commission.				Workforce development takes significant time and resources. National lab representatives said that long-term funding is needed for education and training.				Stakeholders may disagree on the best options to support community assets that are usable for a range of fusion energy technologies.								Engage the public in decision-making (report p. 35)			&nbsp;			Implementation approaches:			&nbsp;			Study public opinion through surveys and focus groups			&nbsp;			Educate through cross-sectoral forums			&nbsp;			Include affected communities in decision-making related to fusion facilities									Could help inform policy decisions, such as those related to regulation of and investment in fusion energy.				Could ensure community stakeholders’ views are represented so that decisions do not negatively impact issues of public concern, such as traffic or the environment.				Could ensure that benefits, such as economic development, are shared broadly and inclusively with affected communities.				Alignment between communities and fusion developers could reduce barriers to their success.									Engagement should be proactive, transparent, and should set realistic expectations for benefits, risks, and timelines.				It may be difficult to ensure broad participation and representation.				Engagement should be used to learn about the public’s perspectives about fusion energy rather than to persuade the public to support fusion.					Source: GAO. &nbsp;| &nbsp;GAO-23-105813Why GAO Did This StudyFusion could address many energy challenges by providing abundant, safe, low-carbon energy. Researchers have achieved scientific and technological advancements in recent years. Fusion energy companies have received billions of dollars of private investment in addition to federal grants.GAO conducted a technology assessment on (1) the status, potential benefits, and limitations of fusion energy, (2) challenges that might affect the development or use of fusion energy, (3) policy options that might help enhance the benefits or mitigate challenges associated with fusion energy.GAO reviewed key reports and scientific literature; interviewed stakeholders from government, industry, and academia; held focus groups with members of the public; attended a conference on issues related to fusion energy; and convened a meeting of experts in collaboration with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. GAO is identifying policy options in this report.For more information, contact Brian Bothwell at (202) 512-6888 or bothwellb@gao.gov.
- Power Marketing Administrations: Additional Steps Are Needed to Better Manage Climate-Related Risks What GAO FoundThe Power Marketing Administrations (PMA)—the Bonneville Power Administration, the Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the Western Area Power Administration—face several climate-related risks to their operations. For example, decreasing water availability resulting from drought could reduce electricity generation from federal hydropower dams, such as the Hoover Dam. Warmer temperatures and drier conditions could lead to more frequent wildfires, which could disrupt operations. For example, in September 2020, 38 of the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission lines were out of service because of wildfires, with some lines out of service momentarily and others for over a week. While it is not possible to attribute an individual event, such as a wildfire, to climate change, such events provide insights into the risks climate change poses to PMA operations.Low Water Levels at the Hoover Dam in August 2021The PMAs have taken some steps to manage climate-related risks. For example, through a series of congressionally mandated assessments, all of the PMAs have identified risks that climate change poses to federal hydropower generation. In addition, the Bonneville Power Administration and the Southwestern Power Administration have conducted assessments of critical assets vulnerable to climate change and developed resilience plans to address climate-related risks, as called for by the Department of Energy's (DOE)  Vulnerability Assessment and Resilience Planning Guidance. The Southeastern Power Administration and the Western Area Power Administration, however, have not yet done so. Identifying critical assets vulnerable to climate change would help these entities develop resilience measures to address climate-related risks and determine whether mitigating certain risks is worth the investment. As GAO and others have reported, investing in resilience can reduce the need for more costly actions in the future. This, in turn, would help the PMAs fulfill their mission of providing reliable and affordable power to their customers.Why GAO Did This StudyThe four PMAs play a significant role in selling and transmitting electricity to public power utilities, cooperatives, and Indian Tribes, in over 30 states. However, more frequent extreme weather events and other risks associated with climate change could cost utilities and customers billions of dollars from power outages and infrastructure damage. DOE's Office of the Under Secretary for Infrastructure oversees the PMAs.GAO was asked to examine U.S. energy infrastructure resilience to climate change. This report examines (1) the risks climate change poses to PMA operations and (2) steps the PMAs have taken to manage climate-related risks and additional steps needed. GAO analyzed relevant reports, including the  Fourth National Climate Assessment; and interviewed PMA officials, as well as 18 knowledgeable stakeholders from risk management; consumer, trade association, and environmental groups; and staff from five DOE national laboratories.
- Department of Energy Contracting: Additional Actions Could Further Strengthen Competition What GAO FoundThe Department of Energy (DOE) received multiple offers for almost all of its competitions for its largest contracts awarded from fiscal years 2015 through 2020 (see figure). However, relatively fewer entities—such as companies, universities, or organizations—submitted offers for management and operating (M&amp;O) contracts than for other types of contracts. When fewer entities submit offers, risks to competition may increase, such as entities engaging in anticompetitive behavior. DOE officials say they help to mitigate these risks through relevant training for staff.Number of Offers Received for Competitions Resulting in the Department of Energy's (DOE) Largest Contracts, Fiscal Years 2015–2020Industry representatives GAO interviewed identified wide-ranging factors that may hinder competition for DOE's largest competitions. A majority of the industry representatives expressed concerns about the fairness of aspects of the award process. For example, they questioned whether officials fairly rated offerors' performance on relevant past work. GAO did not find evidence in the contract files that supported these concerns. However, perceptions of unfairness may hinder competition, because entities may choose not to submit an offer if they perceive that they will not be treated fairly in a competition.Some DOE components have taken actions to address factors that could hinder competition, such as sharing information with industry about the award process—consistent with guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). For example, DOE's Office of Environmental Management has recently begun holding quarterly meetings with industry entities. Agency officials and industry representatives said these meetings have been helpful. DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Office of Science, which had M&amp;O contracts in GAO's scope, have not held similar meetings. Improved information sharing could help these components address industry perceptions about fairness, which could in turn remove barriers to a more competitive acquisition environment.Why GAO Did This StudyDOE is one of the largest federal civilian contracting agencies, awarding contracts for research, weapons production, and environmental cleanup. Competition saves taxpayer dollars, improves contractor performance, and curbs fraud.The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, includes a provision for GAO to assess competition and other aspects of DOE's contracting process. This report examines, among other things, for DOE's largest competitions for contracts awarded in fiscal years 2015 through 2020, (1) the number of offers DOE received and the acquisition environment's potential effects on competition; and (2) factors identified by selected industry entities that may hinder competition, and actions DOE has taken to address such factors.GAO analyzed contract files for the 15 competitions in its scope, interviewed DOE officials and representatives from selected industry entities that expressed interest in the contracts and did—or did not—submit an offer, and compared DOE actions to OMB guidance for enhancing competition.
- Federal Energy and Water Management: Agencies Report Mixed Success in Meeting Efficiency Requirements, and Additional Data Are Needed What GAO FoundAccording to data from fiscal year 2021, federal agencies have a mixed record meeting the six energy and water efficiency requirements that GAO reviewed. There are 27 agencies that use the Department of Energy (DOE) Compliance Tracking System to report data on their performance in meeting these requirements. These data show that most agencies met, or almost met, two of the requirements and did not meet one requirement. GAO could not determine whether agencies fully met the other three requirements due to a lack of data, either because the implementation deadline had not passed and there were not yet available data, or because DOE does not track performance (see table).Specifically, DOE does not track whether agencies entered water use data into a benchmarking system or followed up on implemented energy and water efficiency and conservation measures (ECM) within 4 years, as called for by DOE guidance. As a result, decision makers cannot be certain that agency officials are benchmarking water use data and measuring energy and water savings from implemented ECMs. Without tracking performance on these requirements, Congress cannot know the extent to which agencies have the data they need to make effective decisions to improve energy and water efficiency.Agencies' Performance in Meeting Six Energy and Water Efficiency Requirements, Fiscal Year 2021			Requirement 									Number of agencies that met requirement 									Percent of agencies that met requirement 								Identify covered facilities constituting at least 75 percent of facility energy or water use 									24 of 27									88.9								Designate energy managers for covered facilities 									24 of 27									88.9								Conduct evaluations at covered facilities every 4 years, subject to exception 									1 of 27									3.7								Enter data into a benchmarking system 									--									--								&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Enter energy use data into a 			&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; benchmarking system 									7 of 27									25.9								&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Enter water use data into a 			&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; benchmarking system 									Agency performance not tracked								Implement energy and water conservation measures 									Agency performance not yet available								Follow up on energy and water conservation measures 									Agency performance not tracked					Source: GAO analysis of Department of Energy (DOE) Compliance Tracking System data. | GAO-23-105673Note: Data are as of August 24, 2022. This table summarizes relevant requirements from 42 U.S.C. § 8253(f) and DOE guidance. For more details, see table 1 in this report.Officials GAO interviewed from selected agencies cited varied successes and challenges to meeting each of the six requirements, but the two most frequently cited were the success of using automated or centralized data and the challenge of insufficient resources. For example, agency officials told GAO that automated data allowed them to automatically upload data into a benchmarking system, rather than entering the data manually. Conversely, officials told GAO that insufficient funding or staffing made meeting the requirements challenging. Officials from one agency explained that they must conduct evaluations at agency facilities in remote locations. This makes evaluations more resource-intensive because of the time and expense of sending staff to those locations.Why GAO Did This StudyThe federal government is the single largest energy consumer in the United States. In fiscal year 2021, its roughly 350,000 buildings used more than 344 trillion Btu of energy and 119 billion gallons of water, according to DOE data. For decades, the federal government has taken steps to improve energy and water efficiency at federal facilities, including through laws and executive orders. In particular, six requirements from section 432 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, as amended, relate to the use of energy and water efficiency measures in federal facilities.GAO was asked to review issues related to agency compliance with these energy and water efficiency requirements. This report examines (1) the extent to which agencies are complying with the six energy and water efficiency requirements and (2) the successes and challenges that selected agencies have encountered in their efforts toward meeting these requirements.GAO reviewed DOE data on agency performance in meeting requirements; interviewed officials from six federal agencies, selected in part for facility size and energy use; and conducted a literature review.
- Science & Tech Spotlight: Advanced Batteries Why This MattersBatteries are critical for powering many of our everyday technologies. Increased demand in areas such as transportation and electric grid storage will require longer-lasting batteries with more capacity. Scientific advances in batteries could meet the demand for more energy storage while also ensuring these next-generation batteries are safe, cost-effective, and sustainable. However, challenges remain.The TechnologyWhat is it?A battery is an energy storage device that consists of a chemical solution called an electrolyte and a separator that serves as a barrier between two terminals—an anode and a cathode. During use, the electrolyte allows the flow of charged particles, such as lithium ions, from the anode to the cathode. This produces an electric current that flows out of the battery to a device through an external circuit. Charging the battery reverses this process. Different applications, such as electric vehicles or electric grid storage, require different battery properties—such as size, weight, portability, or duration of use—each of which comes with trade-offs.Figure 1. Example of How Rechargeable Lithium-Ion Batteries Work During UseMost current battery research focuses on lithium-based systems, which can store a lot of energy in a small volume and undergo many charging cycles. According to the American Chemical Society, lithium-ion batteries will make up 70 percent of the rechargeable battery market by 2025. The lithium supply would need to increase to meet this demand, prompting efforts to develop advanced battery technologies that use more earth-abundant materials and reduce reliance on foreign-produced materials.How does it work?Scientists are exploring how to replace critical elements in various components of lithium-ion batteries to improve their performance and safety while using more sustainable, widely-available, and cost-effective materials. For example, the standard material used for the anode of lithium-ion batteries is graphite—the same flaky carbon material used in pencils. However, silicon is a cheap and more readily available material that is safer and can potentially store 10 times as much lithium by weight.Alternative cathode materials are also being tested for lithium-ion batteries. For example, different metal oxides are typically used in the cathode to interact with the lithium and give the battery different traits. Alternatively, lithium-sulfur batteries contain a sulfur-based cathode that reacts with lithium ions to form lithium sulfide, which could allow cells to store 5 times as much energy as a conventional lithium-ion battery. Sulfur is an abundant element that can be mined in the U.S. This makes it a more sustainable alternative to other commonly used metals in lithium-ion battery cathodes, such as cobalt, which is costly and may come from overseas mines with controversial labor or mining practices.Another advancement replaces the typically liquid electrolyte—which can be flammable and can catch fire when overheated—with safer, more stable materials. For example, using a solid electrolyte such as a ceramic or glassy material may prevent the build-up of lithium salt crystals that can short the battery’s circuit and cause fires. These solid-state batteries have the potential to store twice the energy of conventional lithium-ion batteries, increasing how long the battery can work before it needs to be recharged.Lithium-ion batteries are generally limited to short duration use. Rechargeable metal-air batteries and flow batteries may allow for longer storage duration, which could provide advantages in storing intermittent energy produced from renewable sources for use when needed. Metal-air batteries use a metal anode paired with a porous cathode to allow oxygen flow from the surrounding air. Because one terminal is porous, these batteries are lighter than conventional batteries. Researchers have investigated a variety of metals—such as aluminum, lithium, sodium, tin, and zinc—for potential use. Each comes with different advantages and disadvantages. For example, the aluminum-air battery is lightweight, recyclable, made of common materials, and cheap, but is difficult to recharge due to a tendency to corrode.Unlike standard rechargeable batteries, flow batteries store liquid electrolytes in external tanks. Because there is no size limit for external tanks, the storage capacity of the flow battery can be scaled up as needed. This makes them ideal for storing large amounts of energy for the grid but less useful in portable applications like electric vehicles.Figure 2. Example of How Flow Batteries Work for a Grid ApplicationOne of the most advanced flow batteries uses vanadium ions in the electrolyte. Vanadium is costly and scarce; however, vanadium's ions are stable and can be cycled through the battery over and over without undergoing unwanted side reactions, theoretically providing unlimited storage. However, vanadium batteries cannot store a lot of energy in a small volume, thus requiring large external tanks to hold enough power to be useful. Researchers are investigating a variety of chemistries for flow batteries—including zinc-bromine, which uses low-cost, easily accessible materials.How mature is it?Advances in lithium-ion batteries are in various stages of research, but none are currently in commercial use for electric vehicles or grid storage. Batteries with sulfur-based cathodes, silicon-based anodes, and solid electrolytes are all in the pilot phase for transportation applications, with the latter two being piloted for use in electric vehicles. Batteries with silicon-based anodes are only commercially available in small electronics.Non-rechargeable metal-air batteries can be found in devices such as hearing aids; however, currently no rechargeable metal-air battery chemistry has reached large-scale commercialization. Much of flow battery chemistry research has been conducted on a small scale in labs; however, flow batteries are used commercially for several grid and storage applications—including in the U.S., Japan, and Australia.OpportunitiesAdvanced batteries could be key to moving away from fossil fuels for transportation and power generation. For example, they could help the grid store larger amounts of intermittent energy from renewable sources for use during times when weather conditions do not produce sufficient energy or a surge of energy is needed.	An increase in battery capacity and the number of charging cycles through advanced battery technologies could help electric vehicles travel further between charges and increase battery lifespan.	Advanced batteries can be designed to use materials that are more abundant or domestically produced, reducing U.S. reliance on costly materials with potential supply chain issues or national security risks—such as lithium or vanadium.ChallengesStart-up costs for manufacturing advanced battery technologies are high.	Regulations can vary by jurisdiction, presenting a challenge for companies operating in multiple locations.	Most batteries have limited lifespans, and currently there is limited technology or infrastructure to address recycling or disposal.Policy Context and QuestionsWhat types of research could policymakers encourage on the potential use of advanced battery technologies to support renewable energy sources and provide reserves when energy demand is high?	How could policymakers encourage possible uses of advanced battery technologies, including for electric vehicles and electric grid storage?	What steps could federal or state agencies take if they wanted to support use of these technologies across multiple jurisdictions with varying regulatory requirements?	&nbsp;What steps could policymakers take if they wanted to incentivize or operationalize battery recycling and reuse processes on an industrial scale?For more information, contact Karen L. Howard at (202) 512-6888 or HowardK@gao.gov.
- Offshore Oil and Gas: Strategy Urgently Needed to Address Cybersecurity Risks to Infrastructure What GAO FoundOffshore oil and gas infrastructure faces significant and increasing cybersecurity risks in the form of threat actors, vulnerabilities, and potential impacts.Threat actors.  State actors, cybercriminals, and others could potentially conduct cyberattacks against offshore oil and gas infrastructure. The federal government has identified the oil and gas sector as a target of malicious state actors.Vulnerabilities.  Modern exploration and production methods are increasingly reliant on remotely connected operational technology—often critical to safety—that is vulnerable to cyberattack. Older infrastructure is also vulnerable because its operational technology can have fewer cybersecurity protection measures.Potential impacts.  A successful cyberattack on offshore oil and gas infrastructure could cause physical, environmental, and economic harm, according federal officials. For example, officials said that the effects of a cyberattack could resemble those that occurred in the 2010  Deepwater Horizon  disaster. Disruptions to oil and gas production or transmission could also affect energy supplies and markets.An Oil Facility in the Gulf of MexicoThe Department of the Interior's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) has long recognized the need to address cybersecurity risks but has taken few actions to do so. In 2015 and 2020 BSEE initiated efforts to address cybersecurity risks, but neither resulted in substantial action. Earlier this year, BSEE again started another such initiative and hired a cybersecurity specialist to lead it. However, bureau officials said the initiative will be paused until the specialist is adequately versed in the relevant issues. Absent the immediate development and implementation of an appropriate strategy, offshore oil and gas infrastructure will continue to remain at significant risk. Such a strategy would call for, among other things, an assessment of cybersecurity risks and mitigating actions; and the identification of objectives, roles, responsibilities, resources, and performance measures.Why GAO Did This StudyA network of more than 1,600 offshore oil and gas facilities produce a significant amount of domestic oil and gas. To promote safety and protect the environment, BSEE regulates offshore oil and gas infrastructure. This includes drill ships, production facilities, pipelines, and related equipment.GAO was asked to review the cybersecurity of offshore oil and gas infrastructure. This report examines (1) the cybersecurity risks facing offshore oil and gas infrastructure and (2) the extent to which BSEE has addressed them.GAO reviewed relevant federal and industry reports on offshore oil and gas cybersecurity risks and analyzed relevant BSEE documentation. This documentation included a draft strategic framework, a potential regulatory framework, safety alerts, and budget justifications.GAO interviewed officials from agencies with offshore and cybersecurity responsibilities. It also obtained the perspectives of nonfederal stakeholders representing the offshore oil and gas industry.
- Pipeline Safety: Fully Implementing Key Practices Could Help Improve Transparency of Enforcement Website What GAO FoundPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) officials inspect pipelines and investigate accidents. These officials can issue a range of enforcement actions if they identify unsafe conditions or non-compliance with laws or regulations. PHMSA records enforcement information in an electronic records system, and uploads documents and related data to its public Enforcement Transparency website. GAO found that this website fully met two of five key practices that GAO identified for transparently reporting open government data and partially met another three. (See figure.) Open data can foster accountability and public trust by providing citizens with information on government activities and their outcomes. PHMSA officials stated that they would like to improve the website for users, but are first focusing on improving the electronic records system. Nevertheless, fully implementing these key practices could assist PHMSA with transparently presenting enforcement information and help users find the information they need.Key Practices for Transparently Reporting Open Government Data and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Enforcement Transparency Website			Key practices 									Website characteristics 											Engage with users									Met.  PHMSA officials discuss the use of the website with users, including pipeline operators and the public, and provide a link on the website for users to submit feedback or questions.											Fully describe the data									Met.  PHMSA's website provides labels and descriptions of the enforcement data and tables. Metadata and licensing information for these data are available on a central Department of Transportation website.											Provide free and unrestricted data									Partially met.  PHMSA's website and the data it contains are available to the public at no cost. However, PHMSA does not publish complete data on its website. For example, PHMSA's enforcement documents include variables that indicate whether the pipeline involved is interstate or intrastate, but PHMSA does not make these variables available in the enforcement dataset.											Provide data in useful formats									Partially met.  PHMSA allows users to view and download disaggregated data on all enforcement activities. However, users are unable to download a bulk dataset of all enforcement activities from 2002 to 2022. Additionally, users cannot easily match records from the enforcement website with records in PHMSA's accident dataset.											Facilitate data discovery for users									Partially met.  PHMSA facilitates data discovery by providing users with overviews and definitions of the enforcement information published on the website, and provides national summaries of the data. However, PHMSA does not provide an optimized search tool that allows users to filter by discreet variables, such as the regulation violated.					Source: GAO analysis of PHMSA website and key practices. | GAO-23-105537Why GAO Did This StudyAccidents on interstate natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines can release large amounts of these products, potentially injuring or killing people and damaging the environment. In 2007, PHMSA launched the Enforcement Transparency website to address concerns about the transparency of its pipeline safety enforcement actions.The Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2020 includes a provision for GAO to review information on pipeline enforcement actions that PHMSA makes publicly available on the internet. This report addresses (1) PHMSA's process to record pipeline safety enforcement information, and what information PHMSA makes publicly available, and (2) the extent to which its pipeline enforcement website aligns with key practices for transparently reporting data.GAO reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and agency guidance on recording and publishing pipeline safety enforcement information. GAO compared PHMSA's Enforcement Transparency website with leading practices for transparently reporting government data that GAO previously identified, and interviewed PHMSA officials and stakeholders.
- Renewable Fuel Standard: Actions Needed to Improve Decision-Making in the Small Refinery Exemption Program What GAO FoundThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have assurance that its decisions about small refinery exemptions under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) are based on valid information. In addition, EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) do not have policies and procedures specifying how they are to consult about and make exemption decisions.Information.  Small refinery exemption decisions for compliance years 2019 through 2021 were based on an EPA conclusion that small refineries do not experience disproportionate economic hardship from the RFS. This conclusion relies on a potentially flawed assumption—that all parties pay and receive one price for the tradeable credits used to demonstrate compliance with the RFS. GAO found that EPA has not analyzed whether this assumption is valid. GAO's analysis showed that small refineries have paid more on average for compliance credits than large refineries. Without reassessing its conclusion, EPA does not have assurance that its small refinery exemption decisions are based on valid information.Policies and procedures.  EPA has generally documented its decisions. However, EPA has no policies or procedures for how it assesses petitions and makes exemption decisions. Similarly, DOE does not have policies or procedures for how it provides consultation to EPA. Administration of the program has been inconsistent, and the number of exemptions granted and denied has varied from year to year (see fig.). Consequently, agency decisions appear ad hoc, resulting in market uncertainty. This can harm small refineries and renewable fuel producers by undermining their ability to plan for infrastructure upgrades and renewable fuel demand.Number of Small Refinery Exemptions Granted and Denied, 2013-2021EPA has routinely missed the 90-day statutory deadline for issuing exemption decisions and does not have procedures to ensure that it meets these deadlines. In 5 of the 9 years GAO analyzed, EPA took more than 200 days to issue a decision for more than half of the petitions submitted. These late decisions diminish the benefit of exemptions, create market uncertainty, discourage investment, and undermine the design of the RFS more broadly.Why GAO Did This StudyThe RFS requires that gasoline and diesel fuels be blended with a minimum volume of renewable fuel. Small refineries can petition EPA annually for an exemption from their RFS obligations based on disproportionate economic hardship. EPA must evaluate small refinery exemption petitions in consultation with DOE.GAO was asked to review issues related to EPA's and DOE's implementation of the small refinery exemption program. This report examines (1) information, policies, and procedures EPA and DOE use to make decisions about exemptions; and (2) the extent to which exemption decisions are timely. GAO analyzed data and documents related to exemptions from 2013 through 2021 and interviewed agency officials and industry stakeholders.
- Renewable Fuel Standard: Actions Needed to Improve Decision-Making in the Small Refinery Exemption Program What GAO FoundThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have assurance that its decisions about small refinery exemptions under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) are based on valid information. In addition, EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) do not have policies and procedures specifying how they are to consult about and make exemption decisions.Information.  Small refinery exemption decisions for compliance years 2019 through 2021 were based on an EPA conclusion that small refineries do not experience disproportionate economic hardship from the RFS. This conclusion relies on a potentially flawed assumption—that all parties pay and receive one price for the tradeable credits used to demonstrate compliance with the RFS. GAO found that EPA has not analyzed whether this assumption is valid. GAO's analysis showed that small refineries have paid more on average for compliance credits than large refineries. Without reassessing its conclusion, EPA does not have assurance that its small refinery exemption decisions are based on valid information.Policies and procedures.  EPA has generally documented its decisions. However, EPA has no policies or procedures for how it assesses petitions and makes exemption decisions. Similarly, DOE does not have policies or procedures for how it provides consultation to EPA. Administration of the program has been inconsistent, and the number of exemptions granted and denied has varied from year to year (see fig.). Consequently, agency decisions appear ad hoc, resulting in market uncertainty. This can harm small refineries and renewable fuel producers by undermining their ability to plan for infrastructure upgrades and renewable fuel demand.Number of Small Refinery Exemptions Granted and Denied, 2013-2021EPA has routinely missed the 90-day statutory deadline for issuing exemption decisions and does not have procedures to ensure that it meets these deadlines. In 5 of the 9 years GAO analyzed, EPA took more than 200 days to issue a decision for more than half of the petitions submitted. These late decisions diminish the benefit of exemptions, create market uncertainty, discourage investment, and undermine the design of the RFS more broadly.Why GAO Did This StudyThe RFS requires that gasoline and diesel fuels be blended with a minimum volume of renewable fuel. Small refineries can petition EPA annually for an exemption from their RFS obligations based on disproportionate economic hardship. EPA must evaluate small refinery exemption petitions in consultation with DOE.GAO was asked to review issues related to EPA's and DOE's implementation of the small refinery exemption program. This report examines (1) information, policies, and procedures EPA and DOE use to make decisions about exemptions; and (2) the extent to which exemption decisions are timely. GAO analyzed data and documents related to exemptions from 2013 through 2021 and interviewed agency officials and industry stakeholders.
- Federal Vehicle Fleets: Observations on the Transition to Electric Vehicles What GAO FoundA majority (about 69 percent) of vehicles owned and leased by federal agencies are classified as light-duty—mostly sport utility vehicles (SUVs), pick-up trucks, and sedans—and operated across the country. In fiscal year 2021, we found that agencies reported that federal vehicles traveled an average annual mileage of 6,000 miles—although this varied by type and the location of the vehicle. Over that same time period, less than 1 percent of federal vehicles were classified as zero-emission. A zero-emission vehicle is any vehicle, such as an electric vehicle, that, when operating, produces zero tailpipe exhaust emissions of certain pollutants or greenhouse gases.While electric vehicle models are expected to become increasingly available, agencies may need to increase their acquisition of zero-emission vehicles by about 30,000 vehicles per year to meet Executive Order requirements. Given the types of vehicles that federal fleets operate and how they are used, agencies have the potential to incorporate these types of vehicles into their fleets. For example, light-duty vehicles are relatively likely to have a comparably sized zero-emission vehicle model available. GSA officials said that they have been unable to offer larger models of SUVs and pick-up trucks in the past. However, they said that they are optimistic that there will be electric vehicle options for all light-duty vehicle types within the next 5 years. In addition, agencies' typical use (i.e., annual mileage) of their vehicles also suggests a potential to transition to electric vehicles. Recent models of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, which are powered by a combination of a battery on board and a gasoline engine, and of battery electric vehicles, which are powered solely by a battery on board, can generally drive farther than 40 miles and 200 miles, respectively, on battery power.However, access to electric-vehicle-charging infrastructure is generally limited at federal facilities, and widespread fleet electrification will require a significant investment. To support widespread electric vehicle use, GSA has estimated that the federal government may need over 100,000 charging ports—the unit that provides power to the vehicle—in part, because GSA expects agencies to need one charging port for every two electric vehicles acquired—although the exact number required would depend on details of vehicle use and access to public-charging infrastructure. As of March 2022, federal agencies owned and operated over 4,000 charging ports—based out of about 1,050 charging locations—in less than 500 cities.Why GAO Did This StudyIn December 2021, the Biden Administration issued an Executive Order calling for all affected federal vehicle acquisitions to be zero-emission vehicles, such as electric vehicles, by 2035, including 100 percent zero-emission light-duty vehicle acquisitions beginning in 2027. This order affects approximately 380,000 vehicles within federal fleets as they become subject to replacement. Electrifying these fleets represents a significant transformation in the federal government's approach to vehicle procurement and will require a shift in perceptions about their capability to adequately meet mission needs in terms of performance and driving range. GSA and the Department of Energy, among other agencies, play a role in assisting agencies in transitioning their fleets.This report examines: (1) the composition, use, and location of federal fleets and (2) the potential of federal fleets to transition to zero-emission vehicles. To address these objectives we analyzed government-wide data on vehicles in federal agency fleets, and determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for providing high-level depictions of federal fleets, such as describing their overall composition and location. However, they may not be detailed or consistent enough to provide accurate and reliable vehicle-level analyses, such as day-to-day use. We also analyzed GSA information on the vehicles agencies can purchase or lease through GSA, including electric vehicles, and the vehicles agencies ordered in fiscal year 2021. To understand the status of electric vehicle charging infrastructure available to federal agencies, we analyzed data from DOE on federally owned charging stations across the continental United States. We also spoke to GSA and DOE officials about the policies and practices that may affect the transition to electric vehicles.For more information, contact Catina Latham at&nbsp;(202) 512-2834 or lathamC@gao.gov.&nbsp;
- Decarbonization: Status, Challenges, and Policy Options for Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage What GAO FoundMany technologies for carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) are ready for wider demonstration or deployment, but multiple challenges limit their use. Carbon capture includes technologies that separate and purify carbon dioxide (CO2) from a source, which could be an industrial facility (point-source capture) or the atmosphere (direct air capture). Applications of capture technologies at point sources are mature in some sectors (e.g., natural gas processing) but require further demonstration in some of the highest-emitting sectors (e.g., power generation). Direct air capture is not as mature, but has been implemented at pilot scale. Lengthy time to deployment and high costs hinder widespread deployment of both types of carbon capture in the near term.Technologies for transporting, storing, and directly using captured CO2 are mature. Companies are beginning to commercialize utilization technologies that convert captured CO2 into valuable products such as ethanol, sustainable aviation fuel, and mineral aggregates. However, many CO2-based products are not competitive with conventional products, may be excluded from the market by industry standards, and lack a standardized method for ensuring they effectively reduce CO2 emissions.Components of carbon capture, utilization, and storageGAO identified three aspects of CCUS deployment where challenges may arise:Cost. Deploying CCUS is an added cost to doing business but currently offers few opportunities to generate revenue. Incentives such as federal tax credits help offset the high cost of CCUS for some but not all emitters.	Infrastructure development. More widespread deployment of CCUS would require a build-out of infrastructure for each of its components, including transport and storage. Timing of development, negotiating land access, and proximity of facilities are all challenges affecting this build-out.	Community engagement. Deploying CCUS projects relies on acceptance by and effective engagement with local communities. In the past, unsuccessful community engagement and local opposition have contributed to cancellation or relocation of some CCUS projects, while others were well received.GAO identified seven policy options that could help address these challenges or enhance the benefits of CCUS technologies. The policy options are possible actions by policymakers, which may include Congress, federal agencies, state and local governments, academic and research institutions, and industry. In addition, policymakers could choose to maintain the status quo, whereby they would not take additional action beyond current efforts.&nbsp;See below for details of the policy options and selected opportunities and considerations.Policy options to help address challenges or enhance benefits of CCUS technologies, with selected opportunities and considerationsPolicy Option			Opportunities			Considerations					Research, development, and demonstration (report p. 20)			&nbsp;			Policymakers could enhance support for consistent funding of research and development and large-scale demonstrations simultaneously.									Research and development could reduce cost, resolve issues, mitigate risks, and advance emerging technologies.				Demonstrations could reduce cost and establish the viability of carbon capture by promoting learning-by-doing.									Stakeholders have different ideas for research and development priorities.				Requires careful oversight of large-scale demonstrations.								Technology-neutral standards (report p. 34)			&nbsp;			Policymakers could encourage the creation, adoption, or use of technology-neutral standards.									Could incentivize the development or use of products with the best CO2 benefits.&nbsp;				Could incentivize manufacture in the U.S.									Standards development is a resource-intensive and lengthy process.				Could be difficult to compare CO2 benefits of different products without standardized life cycle assessment.								Standardized life cycle assessment guidelines (report p. 34)			&nbsp;			Policymakers could support the creation and use of standardized life cycle assessment guidelines to validate CO2 benefits of CO2-based products.									Could improve accuracy of comparisons between various CO2 utilization pathways or products.									Standards development and life cycle assessment are resource-intensive and lengthy processes.				Coordination of many stakeholders to establish standardized life cycle assessment guidelines may be challenging.								Framework for land access (report p. 44)						Policymakers could support development of legal or regulatory frameworks to manage geologic storage of CO2 at the state level.									Legal or regulatory clarity could facilitate deployment of CO2 storage infrastructure.				Pore-space unitization processes could reduce the time and cost of negotiating land access for storage. &nbsp;									Individual landowners may oppose losing certain property rights due to pore-space unitization.				CO2 storage projects may cross state boundaries, requiring coordination.								Strategic siting (report p. 44)						Policymakers could facilitate strategic siting of CCUS facilities.									Could minimize financial and logistical barriers to CCUS development.				Carbon capture and utilization industries may accelerate deployment if access to infrastructure increases.									Certain geographic regions that are inherently more suited for CCUS could benefit more than others from infrastructure investments.				Some communities may not want CCUS infrastructure for several reasons, including perceptions of environmental and safety risks.								Modify incentives (report p. 55)			&nbsp;			Policymakers could modify existing incentives to facilitate access for CCUS projects.									Could increase the number or kinds of facilities that deploy CCUS.				Could incentivize new technology development to reduce costs of capture.									Modifying tax credits could reduce government tax revenues or increase use of fossil fuels.				Modifying market-based approaches could be subject to uncertainty in carbon prices.								Community engagement (report p. 62)			&nbsp;			Policymakers could support and encourage proactive community engagement around CCUS deployment.									Better understanding of public opinion could guide community engagement and decision-making.				Could build local support and reduce delays.									Well-designed education and public awareness campaigns could be resource-intensive.				May require new funding or reallocation of existing resources to support new efforts.					Source: GAO. &nbsp;| &nbsp;GAO-22-105274Why GAO Did This StudyIn 2021, CO2 reached a record high concentration in the Earth's atmosphere for the modern era. Scientific assessments have shown that reducing CO2 emissions could help mitigate the negative effects of climate change. CCUS is one tool available to help slow, stop, or potentially reverse the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.This report discusses (1) the status of available carbon capture technologies; (2) opportunities for using or storing captured CO2; (3) key challenges that could affect the development, demonstration, and deployment of CCUS technologies; and (4) options policymakers could consider to help address these challenges.In conducting this assessment, GAO interviewed federal officials, academic researchers, industry organizations, private companies, nongovernmental organizations, technology testing centers, and federal advisory committees; In conducting this assessment, GAO interviewed federal officials, academic researchers, industry organizations, private companies, nongovernmental organizations, technology testing centers, and federal advisory committees; convened an interdisciplinary meeting of 27 experts with assistance from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and reviewed relevant literature. GAO is identifying policy options in this report.For more information, contact Karen L. Howard at (202) 512-6888 or howardk@gao.gov.
- Nuclear Waste: DOE Needs to Improve Transparency in Planning for Disposal of Certain Low-Level Waste What GAO FoundThe Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for disposing of greater-than-Class C (GTCC) waste, a type of commercial low-level nuclear waste from decommissioned nuclear reactors and disused medical and industrial equipment. It is also responsible for disposing of government waste with similar characteristics, which it calls GTCC-like waste. In a 2016 environmental impact statement, DOE used its most recent estimates of the volumes and radiological characteristics of these wastes to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of various disposal alternatives. Specifically, DOE estimated that 12,000 cubic meters would be generated through 2083 and require disposal. Of this amount, 1,100 cubic meters were already in storage. However, GAO found that DOE did not quantify uncertainties in its estimates, and DOE guidance does not include quality assurance steps related to quantifying uncertainty. Adding such steps would better ensure the agency provides stakeholders with needed information.Comparative Radiological Hazard of Greater-than-Class C (GTCC) WasteIn its environmental impact statement, DOE selected three preferred options for GTCC and GTCC-like waste disposal: (1) the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, the nation's only geologic repository; (2) commercial land disposal facilities; or (3) both. However, DOE did not explain the rationale for its selection in the statement. GAO reviewed DOE guidance for environmental analyses and found that it did not include specific steps to ensure the agency implements regulatory provisions related to transparency, such as explaining the rationale for its selections. By adding such steps to its guidance, DOE would better ensure its future environmental analyses are transparently documented. This may give stakeholders more confidence in DOE's decisions.DOE faces both regulatory and statutory barriers to disposing of this waste. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has taken steps to address certain regulatory barriers, including (1) preparing to update its regulations that restrict near-surface disposal of GTCC waste and (2) planning to clarify whether NRC can relinquish regulatory authority related to GTCC waste disposal to states. However, without clarification of NRC's statutory ability to relinquish this authority, NRC could face litigation. This could delay disposal and lead to continued costs and risks. Additionally, DOE is required by statute to await congressional direction before proceeding with a decision on GTCC disposal.Why GAO Did This StudyGTCC and GTCC-like waste currently do not have a legal pathway for disposal. NRC is responsible for regulating disposal of GTCC waste, but not GTCC-like waste because it is not a legal category and no regulations specifically govern its disposal. DOE is responsible for identifying a pathway for and carrying out disposal of both types of waste. DOE developed an environmental impact statement to evaluate various options for disposing of the wastes; this statement does not include a final decision on which option DOE will use.The Senate report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 includes a provision for GAO to review several aspects of GTCC waste disposal. This report examines, among other things, (1) DOE estimates of GTCC waste, (2) alternatives DOE has identified for GTCC waste disposal, and (3) barriers to GTCC waste disposal. GAO reviewed laws, regulations, and DOE's environmental impact statement; and interviewed agency and state officials.
- Nuclear Waste Cleanup: Actions Needed to Determine Whether DOE's New Contracting Approach is Achieving Desired Results What GAO FoundThe Office of Environmental Management (EM), within the Department of Energy (DOE), uses contractors to carry out its mission of cleaning up radioactive and hazardous materials at DOE's 15 active environmental cleanup sites. In 2019, EM began using a new contracting approach, the End State Contracting Model (ESCM), with the goal of more effectively moving cleanup sites toward completion. As of June 2022, EM had awarded six contracts worth up to a combined $47 billion, using the ESCM. EM plans to use the model as its preferred contracting strategy for additional large environmental cleanup contracts going forward. According to EM documentation, the agency sought to incorporate elements of prior successful cleanup projects into the ESCM and to gain key benefits, such as a streamlined procurement process and more realistic pricing. Following the contract award, EM negotiates with the contractor for task orders that define scopes of work and costs for specific cleanup activities (see fig.).Overview of the End State Contracting Model ProcessEM developed a program plan to guide its implementation of the ESCM and has identified and shared lessons learned. However, EM officials said that ongoing challenges with the ESCM include ensuring that EM has the workforce capacity to effectively implement it, especially during the post-award phase. EM recently analyzed this issue but chose not to pursue its own recommendation to use an independent entity to assess its workforce capacity. Such an assessment would provide the impartial information that EM needs to better align its workforce to successfully administer the ESCM.GAO's analysis of ESCM contracts found weaknesses with the model's post-award phase, such as the use of undefinitized contract actions, which authorize work to begin before EM and contractors reach final agreement on contract terms. Despite these weaknesses, EM has not systematically assessed its awarded ESCM contracts or developed performance goals or associated measures to assess whether the model is achieving its intended benefits. Implementing a formal, structured process to assess the ESCM's rollout and developing performance measures could help EM to better identify and address weaknesses and ensure that the model is achieving desired results before it awards billions more through the ESCM.Why GAO Did This StudyThe ESCM uses single-award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts with task orders for defined scopes of work after contract award. This represents a key difference from EM's prior contracting approach, which generally required developing detailed scopes of work for the full length of the contract prior to award.Senate Report 117-39 accompanying S. 2792, a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, includes a provision for GAO to review the ESCM. This report (1) describes the current status of the ESCM and EM's reasons for implementing it, (2) examines EM's strategy for ESCM implementation, and (3) examines how EM has administered ESCM contracts. GAO reviewed EM documentation on awarded ESCM contracts and relevant policies and guidance; and interviewed EM officials, industry stakeholders, and relevant contractor personnel.
- Nuclear Energy Projects: DOE Should Institutionalize Oversight Plans for Demonstrations of New Reactor Types [Reissued with revisions on Sept. 15, 2022] What GAO FoundThe Department of Energy (DOE) supports the research, development, and demonstration of new types of nuclear reactors. In line with that role, in fiscal year 2021, the department made three multi-year awards totaling $4.6 billion to support the demonstration of one small modular reactor and two advanced reactors. DOE awarded the Carbon Free Power Project about $1.4 billion for a small modular reactor plant near Idaho Falls, Idaho. Under the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, DOE awarded TerraPower almost $2 billion for the NatriumTM Demonstration in Wyoming and awarded X-energy about $1.2 billion for the Xe-100 Demonstration in Washington State.DOE has taken several actions to manage risks associated with the three demonstration awards, including using project management practices such as budget controls and milestone tracking. The two DOE offices managing the awards—the Offices of Nuclear Energy and Clean Energy Demonstrations—also plan to use additional project management practices, such as external independent reviews, to oversee the awards (see fig.). Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations officials said these additional project management practices will apply to all large DOE energy demonstration awards, regardless of which DOE offices are managing those awards. However, neither office has institutionalized its plans by documenting these additional project management practices. Documenting these processes, including the use of external independent reviews, would allow DOE to share best practices across offices during the course of these multi-year awards, potentially resulting in stronger federal oversight of the projects and improved project performance.Existing and Planned Project Oversight Processes for Nuclear Energy Demonstration Awards, as of June 2022Why GAO Did This StudyIn 2021, nuclear energy accounted for almost 20 percent of the nation's electricity generation and provided about 50 percent of the carbon-free electricity. However, economic challenges have led to the closure or planned shutdown of multiple nuclear power plants. To address these challenges, DOE has made awards to projects that demonstrate first-of-a-kind small modular and advanced reactors. These are either smaller than existing reactors or use technologies expected to offer improvements over the most recent generation of nuclear reactors. According to DOE, the federal government has a unique role to play in reducing the financial and technical risks faced by companies seeking to develop these technologies.GAO was asked to review DOE's management of nuclear energy demonstration awards. This report (1) describes awards DOE has made to support the demonstration of small modular and advanced reactors; and (2) examines actions DOE is taking to manage risks associated with awards.To do this work, GAO assessed DOE's management of the awards against laws, regulations, guidance, and leading project management practices. GAO also interviewed DOE program and project management officials, awardees, and industry stakeholders.
- Tracking the Funds: Specific Fiscal Year 2022 Provisions for Department of Energy What GAO FoundThe Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 appropriated $103.1 million to the Department of Energy (DOE) for 65 projects at the request of Members of Congress. The act includes specific provisions that designate an amount of funds for a particular recipient to use for a specific project. These provisions are called "Congressionally Directed Spending" in the U.S. Senate and "Community Project Funding" in the House of Representatives.GAO described, among other things, information about the intended uses for these funds, the recipients to whom they were designated, and when DOE expects recipients will have access to the funds:The intended uses of these funds are to support efforts to address climate change through investments in renewable energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as improvements in the resilience of the electricity grid. Examples of projects include expanding solar energy infrastructure and incentivizing energy efficiency.The designated recipients of these funds include tribal, state, and local governments, higher education organizations, and other nonprofit organizations in 23 states. Funding ranged from $50,000 to $9 million, with an average of $1.6 million per project.DOE expects most of the funds to be awarded by the end of 2022 with most recipients receiving funds within 120 days of submitting a completed application. The exact timing will depend on how quickly recipients complete their applications. Funding for all of the projects is no-year and therefore is available to DOE until fully expended.Why GAO Did This StudyThe joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 includes a provision for GAO to review agencies' implementation of Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending.For more information, contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov.
- Nuclear Waste Cleanup: Hanford Site Cleanup Costs Continue to Rise, but Opportunities Exist to Save Tens of Billions of Dollars What GAO FoundWe found that the Department of Energy (DOE) continues to face cost increases and delays in its efforts to address 54 million gallons of radioactive waste stored in tanks at the Hanford Site in Washington State. We also found that Congress and DOE could take steps now that could potentially save tens of billions of dollars in cleanup costs for this waste.Why GAO Did This StudyThe Hanford Site is home to one of the largest and most expensive environmental cleanup projects in the world. After decades of research and production of weapons-grade nuclear materials at the 586-square-mile campus ceased in the late 1980s, DOE began cleanup of hazardous and radioactive waste created as a byproduct of producing nuclear weapons. This waste must be retrieved and treated—or immobilized—before disposal, according to legal requirements and agreements made with federal and state environmental regulators. The Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant is DOE's current planned approach to treating Hanford's tank waste.Senate Report 117-39 includes a provision for us to continue periodic briefings on the treatment of waste at the Hanford Site. This report describes the status of DOE's cleanup efforts at the Hanford Site, focusing particularly on the approaches, costs, and alternatives for the tank waste cleanup mission.For more information, contact Nathan Anderson at (202) 512-3841 or andersonn@gao.gov.
- Nuclear Waste Cleanup: DOE's Efforts to Manage Depleted Uranium Would Benefit from Clearer Legal Authorities What GAO FoundThe Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) used the COVID-19 shutdown to perform maintenance and modifications at the two depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) conversion facilities located at the Portsmouth and Paducah sites. These facilities convert DUF6 into two primary products: depleted uranium oxide and hydrofluoric acid. According to EM, the agency spent about $47.4 million on modifications that officials say will improve the facilities' efficiency. EM has not fully assessed the impact of this shutdown on the conversion mission, but officials said that they were developing new cost and schedule estimates for the facilities that will be finalized in 2022. Conversion operations restarted at the Paducah facility in November 2021, and EM officials told us operations restarted at the Portsmouth facility in July 2022.EM has three agreements to reserve nearly 30,000 cylinders of DUF6 (about 44 percent of the inventory) for use by other entities. If the agreements are finalized, the agency may not need to convert all its DUF6 and could reduce operations of the conversion facilities by roughly 30 years, potentially saving over $2 billion in operations costs. EM has two agreements to transfer ownership of nearly 5,500 cylinders to the National Nuclear Security Administration for two separate programs, but the plans and timing of one agreement are uncertain. EM has also reserved over 24,000 cylinders to sell to a private company. However, DOE's authority to sell depleted uranium is doubtful, as it appears to be inconsistent with the 1996 legislation governing DOE uranium disposition. Clarifying DOE's authority to sell depleted uranium could help avoid litigation that could interrupt DOE's efforts to sell DUF6.Breakdown of DOE's Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6) InventoryEM has identified options for disposing of depleted uranium oxide, but plans have not been finalized. EM has determined that three waste disposal sites may be suitable for the depleted uranium oxide but, as of March 2022, only one site is licensed to receive it. Officials said that the agency has been waiting for funding to begin the disposal process. In addition, EM has directed its contractor to sell hydrofluoric acid to a private company and apply the proceeds of those sales to contract costs. EM has been able to keep and use the proceeds of the hydrofluoric acid sales under appropriations laws enacted from fiscal years 2011 through 2022.Why GAO Did This StudyEM is responsible for cleaning up the nuclear waste left behind at two former federal uranium enrichment sites (Portsmouth, in Ohio, and Paducah, in Kentucky). One of the cleanup-related activities is the conversion of DUF6—a highly corrosive by-product of the uranium enrichment process that can be dangerous to human health and the environment—into depleted uranium oxide. This is a more stable chemical form of depleted uranium that can be disposed of or reused. The conversion facilities began operating at Portsmouth in 2010 and Paducah in 2011, but both facilities stopped conversion operations in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.Senate Report 117-39 accompanying S. 2792, a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, included a provision for GAO to review the two conversion facilities. This report examines (1) EM's response to the facilities' COVID-19 shutdown and effects on the facilities' cost and schedule estimates, (2) EM's agreements to provide DUF6 to other entities, and (3) EM's plans for depleted uranium oxide and hydrofluoric acid.GAO reviewed project documentation, transfer and sales agreements, and legislation; and interviewed EM and National Nuclear Security Administration officials, state regulators, and representatives for the disposal facilities.