Energy Policy: Information on Federal and Other Factors Influencing U.S. Energy Production and Consumption from 2000 through 2013
Published: 2014-09-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Federal energy policy since the 1970s has focused primarily on ensuring a secure supply of energy while protecting the environment. The federal government supports and intervenes in U.S. energy production and consumption in various ways, such as providing tax incentives, grants, and other support to promote domestic production of energy, as well as setting standards and requirements.
GAO was asked to provide information on federal activities and their influence on U.S. energy production and consumption over the past decade. This report provides information on U.S. production and consumption of fossil, nuclear, and renewable energy from 2000 through 2013 and major factors, including federal activities, that influenced energy production and consumption levels. It also provides information on other federal activities that may have influenced aspects of U.S. energy production and consumption from 2000 through 2013 but were not targeted at a specific energy source, as well as information on federal research and development.
GAO analyzed DOE historical data on energy production and consumption, reviewed studies and reports from federal agencies and governmental organizations on federal energy-related activities, and analyzed data on federal spending programs and tax incentives, among other things.
GAO is not making recommendations in this report. DOE, the Department of the Treasury, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical comments that GAO incorporated as appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: According to the studies and reports GAO reviewed, several major factors, including federal activities, influenced U.S. production and consumption of fossil, nuclear, and renewable energy from 2000 through 2013. Examples of these factors include the following:
Fossil energy. Advances in drilling technologies enabled economic production of natural gas and crude oil from shale and similar geological formations. These advances led to increases in domestic production of natural gas and crude oil beginning around 2008 and contributed to declines in domestic prices of natural gas, as well as lower prices for crude oil in some regions of the United States. Some federal activities also may have influenced these trends. For example, the federal government limited oil producers' liability associated with some oil spills, lowering the producers' costs for liability insurance. In addition, the federal government provided tax incentives encouraging production for oil and gas producers, resulting in billions of dollars in estimated federal revenue losses. Moreover, partly because of lower natural gas prices, domestic coal production decreased in recent years as utilities switched from coal to natural gas for electricity generation.
Nuclear energy. Declining prices for a competing energy source—natural gas—may have led to decreases in the production and consumption of nuclear energy in recent years. Federal activities may have also influenced this trend. For example, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced plans to terminate its work to license a disposal facility for certain nuclear power plant waste in 2009, creating uncertainty about how this waste would be managed. This uncertainty may have provided a disincentive for some nuclear power operators to stay in the market or expand capacity because of the cost of storing nuclear waste.
Renewable energy. Federal tax credits for ethanol and federal policies requiring the use of ethanol in transportation fuels were major factors influencing an 8-fold increase in the production and consumption of ethanol from 2000 to 2013. In addition, state policies requiring the use of renewable energy in electricity production, as well as federal outlays and tax credits for renewable energy producers, were major factors influencing a 30-fold increase and a 19-fold increase in production and consumption of electricity from wind and solar energy, respectively, from 2000 to 2013.
According to the studies and reports GAO reviewed, other federal activities may have influenced aspects of U.S. energy production and consumption from 2000 through 2013 but were not targeted at a specific energy source. For example, the federal government strengthened energy efficiency standards for vehicle fuel economy and consumer products such as appliances and lighting, provided electricity and transmission services to customers through its power marketing administrations and the Tennessee Valley Authority, and spent billions of dollars helping low-income households cover heating and cooling costs. In addition, the federal government supported research and development targeting a wide range of energy-related technologies at government-owned laboratories and through funding to universities and other research entities.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Americans’ daily lives, as well as the economic productivity of the United  States, depend on energy. Most sectors of American society rely upon a  readily available and affordable supply of energy to function. However,  the production and consumption of energy involve economic and  environmental trade-offs. For example, fossil energy provides relatively  inexpensive sources of fuels that power automobiles, generate electricity,  and power industrial processes. However, burning these fuels increases  air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, according to the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to the Congressional  Research Service (CRS), federal energy policy since the 1970s has  focused primarily on ensuring a secure supply of energy while protecting  the environment.
In pursuing the goals of a secure energy supply and a healthy  environment, the federal government subsidizes or otherwise provides  support to energy companies and consumers. For example, the federal  government provides tax incentives and other support to promote the  domestic production of energy (including the extraction of coal, oil, and  natural gas) and the development of renewable energy (including wind  and solar power). The federal government also intervenes in energy  markets in other ways, such as setting standards and requirements  (through laws and regulations) that may not be directed at specific  sources of energy but that nonetheless may influence the types and  quantities of energy that are produced or consumed. For example, the  federal government promotes energy efficiency through appliance  efficiency standards that are written into law and regulates pollutants that  are created in the production and consumption of energy.
The federal government has established a number of important energy  policies over the past decade, and several federal organizations have  studied some of the costs associated with these policies. For example,  Congress passed several key laws affecting energy producers and  consumers over the past 10 years, including the Energy Policy Act of  2005 (EPAct), the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),  and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery  Act). Several federal organizations, including the Department of Energy’s  (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA), CRS, and the  Congressional Budget Office (CBO), have published reports identifying  and quantifying aspects of federal support for energy production and  consumption associated with these policies. In general, these reports  focused on costs associated with federal energy-related tax incentives,  outlays, or loan or loan guarantee programs.
You asked us to provide a broader context for understanding how federal  activities have influenced U.S. energy production and consumption over  the past decade. In this report, we provide information on U.S. production  and consumption of fossil, nuclear, and renewable energy from 2000  through 2013 and major factors, including federal activities, that  influenced energy production and consumption levels. We also provide  information on other federal activities that may have influenced aspects of  U.S. energy production and consumption from 2000 through 2013 but  were not targeted at a specific energy source, as well as information on  federal support for research and development (R&D).
To provide information on U.S. production and consumption of fossil,  nuclear, and renewable energy from 2000 through 2013, we reviewed  and analyzed EIA historical data, as well as EIA articles and monthly and  annual reports. We assessed the reliability of EIA’s data and determined  them to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To provide information on  major factors, including federal activities, that influenced energy  production and consumption levels, we reviewed our prior work. We also  reviewed reports and studies from federal agencies and government  organizations, including CBO, CRS, DOE, Department of the Treasury  (Treasury), EIA, congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), Office  of Management and Budget (OMB), and U.S. Department of Agriculture  (USDA). To identify these reports and studies, we conducted searches of  various databases, such as ProQuest and PolicyFile, and asked agency  officials to recommend studies. In addition, we reviewed and analyzed  data and documentation on outlays, royalties collected, excise taxes  collected, tax expenditures, forgone royalties, and federal credit programs  collected from DOE, Department of the Interior (Interior), JCT, OMB, and  Treasury. Based on a review of this information, we assessed the  reliability of these data and determined them to be sufficiently reliable for  our purposes. To provide information on other federal activities that may  have influenced aspects of U.S. energy production and consumption from  2000 through 2013 but were not targeted at a specific energy source, and  to provide information on federal support for R&D, we reviewed our prior  work and the reports and studies from federal agencies and governmental  organizations (as described above). We also reviewed and analyzed data  and documentation on outlays, tax expenditures, and federal credit  programs from DOE, JCT, OMB, and Treasury. Based on a review of this  information, we assessed the reliability of these data and determined  them to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Overall, we relied on our  prior work and the work of other federal agencies and governmental  organizations to identify major factors that influenced U.S. energy  production and consumption levels. However, this work may not have  identified all of the relevant factors that influenced energy production and  consumption from 2000 through 2013. In addition, we did not examine  permitting issues on federal lands, including issues related to  infrastructure and oil and gas development. Appendix I provides  additional information on the scope and methodology of our review.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2013 to September  2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: U.S. Sources and Uses of Energy
paragraphs: The United States consumes energy from three major categories of  sources: fossil, nuclear, and renewable. Fossil energy comes from coal,  natural gas, crude oil, and petroleum products. Nuclear energy comes  from uranium, which is mined and processed into nuclear fuel. This fuel  undergoes nuclear fission in a nuclear reactor to produce heat, which is  converted into electricity using steam turbine technology. Renewable  energy comes from a variety of sources, including biomass, which is  organic material from plants and animals and includes liquid biofuels  (such as ethanol and biodiesel), wood, and waste (such as municipal  solid waste and agricultural byproducts); hydroelectric power; geothermal;  wind; and solar. Many sources of renewable energy are converted into  electricity before being consumed. The United States domestically  produces most of the energy it consumes. However, it also imports a  portion, mostly in the form of crude oil and petroleum products.
In 2013, the United States consumed over 97 quadrillion British thermal  units (Btu) of energy, including over 12 quadrillion Btus of imported  energy, according to EIA data. As shown in figure 1, most of this energy  (or about 82 percent) came from fossil energy sources. The rest came  from renewable and nuclear energy sources.
There are four major sectors of the U.S. economy that consume energy at  the point of end use:  the industrial sector, which includes facilities and equipment used for  manufacturing, agriculture, mining, and construction;  the transportation sector, which generally comprises vehicles (such as  cars, trucks, buses, trains, aircraft, and boats, among others) that  transport people or goods;  the residential sector, which consists of homes and apartments; and  the commercial sector, which includes buildings such as offices,  malls, stores, schools, hospitals, hotels, warehouses, restaurants, and  places of worship, among others, as well as federal, state, and local  facilities and equipment.
End-use sectors obtain energy from different combinations of sources.  The industrial sector mainly consumes natural gas and electricity but also  uses some petroleum products as feedstock. The transportation sector  mainly consumes gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel; it also consumes biofuels  and natural gas, as well as small amounts of electricity. The residential  and commercial sectors mainly consume energy from electricity and  natural gas but also use some petroleum products. As described above,  every sector consumes electricity produced by the electric power sector,  which takes electricity generated from fossil, nuclear, or renewable  energy and delivers it to the end-use sectors through transmission and  distribution lines. As shown in figure 2, the industrial sector consumed the  largest share of energy (32 percent or 31.3 quadrillion Btus) in 2013,  followed by the transportation, residential, and commercial sectors.
Not all of the energy produced is available for consumption at the point of  end use, mainly because energy losses occur whenever energy is  converted from one form to another. For example, coal-fueled power  plants produce electricity by burning coal in a boiler to heat water and  produce steam. The steam, at tremendous pressure and temperature,  flows into a turbine, which spins a generator to produce electricity. During  this process, the burning of coal produces heat energy, some of which  converts water into steam. In turn, some of the energy in the steam is  converted into electrical energy. At each point in this process, some of the  original energy contained in the coal is lost. According to EIA, about two- thirds of the energy consumed to generate electricity is lost in conversion,  and most of these losses occur in fossil-fueled and nuclear power plants  that generate steam to turn turbines.
According to general economic principles, a number of factors may affect  the production and consumption of energy. These factors include the  following:
Changes in the supply of energy relative to changes in demand may  affect the price that consumers pay. For example, if the supply of  gasoline increases faster than the demand for it, the price of gasoline  will most likely decrease. In contrast, if the demand for gasoline  increases faster than the ability to supply it, the price of gasoline will  most likely increase.
Prices of energy provide signals to producers and consumers and  may affect their behavior. For example, lower gasoline prices provide  an incentive for consumers to consume more gasoline, while higher  gasoline prices provide an incentive for consumers to consume less  gasoline. (However, incentives or disincentives may not actually  change behavior if they are insufficient to outweigh other factors or  considerations.)
Costs associated with producing energy provide signals to producers  and may affect their behavior. For example, lower production costs  provide an incentive for oil companies to produce more gasoline,  while higher production costs provide an incentive for oil companies to  produce less gasoline.
section_title: Factors Influencing Overall U.S. Energy Production and Consumption
paragraphs: Three important factors—energy efficiency, energy conservation, and the  global economic recession of 2007 to 2009—had a major influence on  U.S. energy production and consumption over the past decade but  generally affected all energy producers and consumers rather than  affecting only a specific source of energy. The first two factors are related  but have distinct meanings. Energy efficiency is the use of technology  that requires less energy to perform the same function, such as using a  compact fluorescent light bulb in place of an incandescent bulb. Energy  conservation is any behavior that results in the use of less energy, such  as turning the lights off when you leave the room. Both energy efficiency  and conservation reduce our consumption of energy and thereby  influence the total amount of energy produced and consumed in the  United States.
Some data suggest that the United States increased the efficiency with  which it used energy from 2000 to 2013. For example, according to  Federal Highway Administration data, the fuel economy of U.S. motor  vehicles increased from an average of 16.9 miles per gallon in 2000 to  17.6 miles per gallon in 2012 (the latest year for which data are  available). Another measure of the efficiency with which the United States  uses its energy is to compare U.S. energy consumption with the U.S.  gross domestic product, which is a measure of the value of all final goods  and services produced within the United States in a given period. By  making this comparison, we can measure whether it takes less energy  over time to produce the same value of goods and services. According to  EIA data, the consumption of energy per dollar value of gross domestic  product decreased from about 7,900 Btus per dollar in 2000 to about  6,200 Btus per dollar in 2013, indicating that the United States became  more energy efficient.
The third factor, the global economic recession of 2007 to 2009, resulted  in reduced economic activity in general, which reduced energy demand  and had long-term effects on global energy markets. For example,  according to a 2009 International Energy Agency report, the recession’s  effects on both energy producers and consumers included the following:
Energy companies drilled fewer oil and gas wells and reduced  spending on refineries, pipelines, and power stations.
Businesses and households spent less on energy-using appliances,  equipment, and vehicles.
Tighter credit and lower prices made investment in energy savings  less attractive financially, while the economic crisis encouraged  energy consumers to reduce overall spending. As a result, the  deployment of more energy-efficient equipment was delayed.
Equipment manufacturers were expected to reduce investment in  research, development, and commercialization of more energy- efficient models.
section_title: Key Methods of Federal Support and Interventions
paragraphs: The federal government supports or intervenes in U.S. energy production  and consumption through a number of key methods, including (1) setting  standards and requirements, (2) directly providing goods and services, (3)  assuming risk, (4) providing funds, and (5) collecting or forgoing revenue  from taxes or fees. The federal government also conducts and provides  funding for energy-related R&D.
subsections: section_title: Setting Standards and Requirements
paragraphs: Through laws and regulations, the federal government sets standards and  requirements for (or prohibitions against) certain activities. Some laws  and regulations focus on affecting economic activity by controlling prices,  output, or the entry and exit of firms in a market. For example, under the  Atomic Energy Act, as amended, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is  responsible for issuing licenses to commercial nuclear reactors and  conducting oversight of activities under such licenses to protect the health  and safety of the public, among other things. Without such licenses, firms  cannot operate nuclear reactors and generate electricity from nuclear  energy. Other laws and regulations focus on the effects of economic  activity on the health and welfare of citizens. For example, under the  Clean Air Act, EPA is responsible for regulating emissions of a variety of  air pollutants from coal-fueled power plants and other energy producers.  While laws and regulations vary widely in how they are designed, they  tend to function by influencing the decisions of producers and consumers  in the market. In addition, laws and regulations may impose a variety of  costs, such as costs on regulated entities to comply with the laws and  regulations (“compliance costs”), and costs on government agencies to  administer and enforce them. To the extent that the compliance costs  affect the costs of engaging in particular energy-related activities, laws  and regulations may change the behavior of energy producers and  consumers.
section_title: Directly Providing Goods and Services
paragraphs: The federal government provides some goods or services directly—that  is, through a government agency—rather than providing funds to another  entity to provide these goods or services. For example, the federal  government may produce and sell electricity generated at federally- owned facilities and produce reports and information on energy markets,  among other things. Government provision of goods or services may be  deemed necessary to address certain circumstances, such as economic  inequalities among segments of the public or a need for a good or service  considered unlikely to be met by the private sector. Such activities may  affect energy producers and consumers in different ways. For example,  production and sales of electricity generated at federally-owned facilities  may involve energy sources and prices that differ from those of electricity  produced and sold by private market participants.
section_title: Assuming Risk
paragraphs: The federal government assumes risk (and potential costs associated  with risk) in a number of ways, such as making direct loans—disbursing funds to nonfederal borrowers under  contracts requiring the repayment of such funds either with or without  interest; guaranteeing loans—providing a guarantee, insurance, or other providing or subsidizing insurance.  pledge regarding the payment of all or a part of the principal or  interest on any debt obligation of a nonfederal borrower to a  nonfederal lender;  limiting liability; and  By assuming some or all of the costs associated with risks for certain  energy activities, the government may make those activities relatively less  expensive, thus providing an incentive to pursue those activities. For  example, if the federal government assumes the risk of default on a loan  to a manufacturer of turbines (that generate electricity from wind energy),  nonfederal lenders may offer a lower interest rate to the manufacturer  than they would in the absence of the federal guarantee. Lowering the  costs of capital for developers could result in certain projects being  financed that would otherwise not be built.
section_title: Providing Funds
paragraphs: The federal government directly provides (or outlays) funds for different  purposes. In some cases, an agency may provide funds in the form of a  grant. For example, USDA may provide grants to help farmers, ranchers,  and rural small businesses purchase and install renewable energy  systems. In other cases, an agency may need to purchase goods or  services. For example, federal agencies purchase energy for their  buildings, as well as vehicles and fuel for these vehicles. To the extent  that federal outlays lower the cost associated with a particular activity,  federal outlays may lead to changes in the behavior of energy producers  and consumers.
section_title: Collecting or Forgoing Revenues
paragraphs: The federal government collects revenues using different methods. One  prominent method is through the tax system, which includes personal  income taxes, corporate income taxes, and excise taxes based on the  value of goods and services sold, among other types of taxes. The  primary purpose of the federal tax system is to collect the revenue  needed to fund the operations of the federal government. Taxes may alter  taxpayers’ behavior by inducing them to shift resources from higher-taxed  uses to lower-taxed uses in an effort to reduce tax liability.
The federal government also collects revenues associated with its  management of federal lands. The federal government owns and  manages roughly 30 percent of the nation’s total surface area (or about  700 million acres onshore). It also has jurisdiction and control over the  outer continental shelf, which includes about 1.8 billion acres of  submerged lands in federal waters off the coast of Alaska, in the Gulf of  Mexico, and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The federal government  leases federal lands for the production of oil, gas, minerals such as coal,  or other resources. In exchange, the government generally collects  revenues, including payments in the form of rents and bonuses, which are  required to secure and maintain a lease, and royalties, which are based  on the value of the minerals that are extracted.
However, the federal government may choose to forgo certain revenues.  Tax expenditures are tax provisions that are exceptions to the “normal  structure” of individual and corporate income tax necessary to collect  federal revenue. These preferences can have the same effects as  government spending programs; hence the name tax expenditures. The  Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 identified  six types of tax provisions that are considered tax expenditures when they  are exceptions to the normal tax, as described in table 1. Tax  expenditures may affect the behavior of energy producers and consumers  by providing an incentive to engage in certain types of activities. For  some tax expenditures, forgone revenues can be of the same magnitude  or larger than related federal spending for some mission areas.
In addition to forgoing tax revenues, the federal government may choose  to forgo revenues associated with its leases of federal lands and waters.  “Royalty relief” is a waiver or reduction of royalties that companies would  otherwise be obligated to pay for their leases of federal lands or waters.  For example, the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act  of 1995 mandated royalty relief for oil and gas leases issued in the deep  waters of the Gulf of Mexico from 1996 to 2000.
section_title: Research and Development
paragraphs: Energy-related R&D takes place across a spectrum of activities, including  basic research, applied research, and demonstration. Basic research  includes efforts to explore and define scientific or engineering concepts or  to investigate the nature of a subject without targeting any specific  technology. Applied research includes efforts to develop new scientific or  engineering knowledge to create new and improved technologies.  Demonstration includes efforts to operate new or improved technologies  to collect information on their performance and assess readiness for  commercialization and deployment for widespread use.
The federal government plays a critical role in supporting energy-related  R&D, which may involve conducting R&D at government-owned  laboratories or funding another entity to conduct R&D. For example, as  one of the largest research agencies in the federal government, DOE  spends billions of dollars every year on R&D to support its diverse  missions, including advancing scientific research and technology  development and ensuring efficient and secure energy, among other  things. However, because long time lags may occur between basic  research activities and activities related to commercialization and  deployment, it is often difficult to link government-funded R&D to specific  effects on energy production, consumption, and prices in the future.
DOE’s R&D covers a broad range of activities, and DOE program offices  manage 17 national laboratories. The following DOE program offices  and laboratories primarily support energy-related R&D:
The Office of Science oversees six national laboratories with research  areas focusing on energy: Ames Laboratory in Iowa, Argonne  National Laboratory in Illinois, Brookhaven National Laboratory in New  York, Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, Pacific Northwest  National Laboratory in Washington, and Princeton Plasma Physics  Laboratory in New Jersey. The Office of Science is the nation’s single  largest funding source for supporting research in energy sciences.
The Office of Nuclear Energy oversees the Idaho National Laboratory  in Idaho. The office’s primary mission is to advance nuclear power as  a resource capable of meeting the nation’s energy, environmental,  and national security needs by resolving technical, cost, safety,  proliferation resistance, and security barriers.
The Office of Fossil Energy oversees the National Energy Technology  Laboratory in Pennsylvania. The office’s primary mission is to ensure  reliable fossil energy resources for clean, secure, and affordable  energy while enhancing environmental protection.
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy oversees the  National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado. The office’s  mission is to develop solutions for energy-saving homes, buildings,  and manufacturing; sustainable transportation; and renewable  electricity generation.
Federal agencies other than DOE also provide funding for energy-related  R&D. For example, as we found in February 2012, the Department of  Defense and USDA implemented numerous initiatives to help develop  renewable energy technologies. In addition, as we found in August  2012, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National  Science Foundation, EPA, and National Institute of Standards and  Technology implemented a number of energy initiatives related to  batteries and energy storage.
section_title: Major Factors Influencing U.S. Production and Consumption of Energy from 2000 through 2013
paragraphs: The following three sections provide information on U.S. production and  consumption of fossil, nuclear, and renewable energy from 2000 through  2013 and major factors, including federal activities, that influenced energy  production and consumption levels. The fourth section provides  information on other federal activities that may have influenced aspects of  U.S. energy production and consumption from 2000 through 2013 but  were not targeted at a specific energy source, as well as information on  federal support for R&D.
subsections: section_title: Major Factors Influencing U.S. Production and Consumption of Fossil Energy
paragraphs: According to the studies and reports we reviewed, several major factors  influenced U.S. production and consumption of fossil energy from 2000  through 2013:
Advances in drilling technologies enabled economic production of  natural gas from shale and other tight formations. These advances  led to increases in domestic production of natural gas starting around  2008 and contributed to declines in domestic prices of natural gas  starting around 2009. As domestic production rose and prices  declined, domestic consumption increased, imports of natural gas  decreased, and companies began taking steps to gain approval to  export liquefied natural gas.
The same advances in drilling technologies also enabled the  economic production of crude oil from shale formations. These  advances led to increases in the domestic production of crude oil  beginning around 2009, reversing a decades-long trend of decreasing  production. Global crude oil prices generally increased between 2000  and 2013, the largest, sustained price increase since comparable data  were available. Increased domestic production contributed to lower  prices for some regions of the country; however, the impact of  increased domestic crude oil production on global crude oil prices was  likely small. Imports of crude oil decreased beginning around 2008 as  domestic production displaced imported crude oil to U.S. petroleum  refiners. Around 2010, U.S. refiners began consuming greater  quantities of crude oil to produce more petroleum products. As  domestic consumption of petroleum products generally decreased  beginning around 2008, exports of petroleum products (mostly diesel  fuel) increased.
Due in part to lower prices of natural gas, the use of coal for electricity  generation decreased in recent years as utilities switched to natural  gas. Domestic coal production decreased in recent years; however,  coal exports increased as domestic consumption declined faster than  domestic production.
The studies and reports we reviewed also indicated that federal activities  may have influenced fossil energy markets, generally by providing  incentives or disincentives for the production and consumption of fossil  energy. These activities included setting standards and requirements  related to fossil energy emissions, assuming risks associated with oil  spills and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, collecting revenues  associated with excise taxes on transportation fuels and royalty payments  for oil and gas leases, and forgoing revenues associated with tax  expenditures for fossil energy producers and royalty relief for oil and gas  production. (See app. III for more information on the major factors that  influenced U.S. production and consumption of fossil energy from 2000  through 2013.)
section_title: Major Factors Influencing U.S. Production and Consumption of Nuclear Energy
paragraphs: According to the studies and reports we reviewed, several major factors  may have influenced U.S. production and consumption of nuclear energy  from 2000 through 2013. Specifically, declining natural gas prices, along  with the 2011 accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi commercial nuclear  power plant, may have led to decreases in the production and  consumption of nuclear energy in recent years. Federal activities also  may have influenced this trend, generally by providing incentives or  disincentives for the production and consumption of nuclear energy.  These activities included setting standards and requirements related to  the operation of nuclear power plants, providing services related to the  storage of nuclear waste, assuming risks associated with nuclear power  plant operations, and forgoing revenues associated with tax expenditures  for nuclear energy producers. (See app. IV for more information on the  major factors that influenced U.S. production and consumption of nuclear  energy from 2000 through 2013.)
section_title: Major Factors Influencing U.S. Production and Consumption of Renewable Energy
paragraphs: According to the studies and reports we reviewed, several major factors  influenced U.S. production and consumption of renewable energy— particularly from ethanol, wind energy, and solar energy—from 2000  through 2013:
Federal tax credits for ethanol and federal policies requiring the use of  ethanol in transportation fuels were major factors influencing an 8-fold  increase in the production and consumption of ethanol from 2000  through 2013. As domestic production of ethanol outpaced  consumption in recent years, U.S. exports of ethanol increased.
State policies requiring the use of renewable energy in electricity  production, as well as federal activities such as outlays and tax credits  for renewable energy producers, were major factors influencing  production and consumption of electricity from wind and solar energy.  Technological advances also played an important role. These factors  supported a 30-fold increase in production and consumption of wind  energy from 2000 through 2013 and a 19-fold increase in the  production and consumption of solar energy.
See appendix V and appendix VI for more information on the major  factors that influenced U.S. production and consumption of renewable  energy from 2000 through 2013.
section_title: Other Federal Activities Influencing Aspects of U.S. Energy Production and Consumption
paragraphs: According to the studies and reports we reviewed, other federal activities  were not targeted specifically at fossil, nuclear, or renewable energy  production and consumption but may have influenced aspects of U.S.  energy production and consumption from 2000 through 2013. Relevant  federal activities included setting standards and requirements for energy  efficiency, selling electricity, providing loans and loan guarantees related  to energy efficiency, making outlays for energy consumption and energy  efficiency, and forgoing revenues through tax expenditures for electricity  transmission and energy efficiency, among other things. Many of these  federal efforts, particularly activities related to energy efficiency, provided  disincentives for energy production and use; in contrast, other federal  efforts, such as selling electricity, provided incentives for energy  production and consumption. In addition, the federal government, and  DOE in particular, supported energy-related R&D, which typically is  directed at the early stages of technological advances and therefore not  generally linked to actual production or consumption of energy. Some of  this R&D related to specific energy sources, while other R&D was more  general. (See app. VII for more information on federal activities that may  have influenced other aspects of U.S. energy production and  consumption from 2000 through 2013.)
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOE, Interior, Treasury, and USDA  for review and comment. DOE, Treasury, and USDA provided technical or  clarifying comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Interior  indicated they had no comments on the report.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture,  Energy, the Interior, and the Treasury; the Administrator of EIA; the  Director of OMB; and other interested parties. In addition, this report will  be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff members who made major  contributions to this report are listed in appendix VIII.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: This report provides information on U.S. production and consumption of  fossil, nuclear, and renewable energy from 2000 through 2013 and major  factors, including federal activities, that influenced energy production and  consumption levels. It also provides information on other federal activities  that may have influenced aspects of U.S. energy production and  consumption from 2000 through 2013 but were not targeted at a specific  energy source, as well as information on federal support for research and  development (R&D).
To provide information on U.S. production and consumption of fossil,  nuclear, and renewable energy from 2000 through 2013, we reviewed  and analyzed Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Information  Administration (EIA) historical data, as well as EIA articles and monthly  and annual reports. To assess the reliability of EIA data, we took several  steps including reviewing available documentation on the collection of the  data. We determined the EIA data to be sufficiently reliable for our  purposes.
To provide information on the major factors, including federal activities,  that influenced energy production and consumption levels from 2000  through 2013; to provide information on other federal activities that may  have influenced U.S. energy production and consumption from 2000  through 2013 but were not targeted at a specific energy source; and to  provide information on federal R&D, we performed the following steps:
We reviewed information from our prior work related to the production  and consumption of crude oil, petroleum products, natural gas, coal,  nuclear energy, ethanol, wind energy, solar energy, energy efficiency,  electricity transmission, and federal R&D. We relied on our prior work  to identify the major factors that influenced U.S. energy production  and consumption levels. However, this work may not have identified  all of the relevant factors that influenced energy production and  consumption from 2000 through 2013. In addition, we did not examine  permitting issues on federal lands, including issues related to  infrastructure and oil and gas development.
We reviewed information related to U.S. energy production and  consumption from federal agencies and government organizations,  including reports and studies by the Congressional Budget Office  (CBO), Congressional Research Service (CRS), EIA, congressional  Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), and U.S. Department of  Agriculture (USDA). To identify reports and studies, we conducted  searches of various databases, such as ProQuest and PolicyFile, for  studies published since 2008. We also asked agency officials and  other stakeholders we contacted to recommend reports and studies.  We relied on these reports and studies to identify the major factors  that influenced U.S. energy production and consumption levels.  However, these reports and studies may not have identified all of the  relevant factors that influenced energy production and consumption  from 2000 through 2013.
We reviewed and analyzed data on outlays, royalties collected, and  excise taxes collected from DOE, Department of the Interior (Interior),  Department of the Treasury (Treasury), and Office of Management  and Budget (OMB). To assess the reliability of these data sets, we  interviewed individuals with knowledge of them and reviewed  available documentation on the collection of the data and on any  methods that were used in calculating the data. From this review, we  determined that the data sets were sufficiently reliable for our  purposes.
We reviewed and analyzed data on estimates of tax expenditures,  forgone royalties, and federal credit programs collected from DOE,  JCT, and Treasury. We also relied on lists of tax expenditures and  estimates of their cost compiled annually by Treasury and JCT under  the energy budget function. In general, we used Treasury revenue  loss estimates for each tax expenditure except in cases where only  JCT reported a tax expenditure. Regarding data on tax expenditures,  changes in economic conditions and estimation techniques can affect  revenue loss estimates for tax expenditures, making them differ from  year to year. Also, legislation affecting tax rates or the tax structure  affects tax expenditure estimates. When statutory rates increase, a  taxpayer’s ability to reduce tax on a portion of income is worth more;  consequently, tax expenditures are worth more. Likewise, when rates  decrease, tax expenditures are worth relatively less. To assess the  reliability of these data sets, we interviewed individuals with  knowledge of them and reviewed available documentation on the  collection of the data and on any methods that were used in  calculating the data. From this review, we determined that the data  sets were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2013 to September  2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Federal Sources of Data on Energy-Related Outlays and Tax Expenditures
paragraphs: The federal budget provides data on energy-related outlays. The federal  budget is divided into different functional areas, which is a way of  grouping budgetary resources so that all budget authority and outlays of  on-budget and off-budget federal entities and tax expenditures can be  presented according to the national needs being addressed. National  needs are grouped in 17 broad areas, one of which is “energy.” The  energy area includes (1) promoting an adequate supply and appropriate  use of energy to serve the needs of the economy and (2) energy  programs of the Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor  agencies. It also excludes atomic energy defense activities and general  science research not closely related to energy. The Office of  Management and Budget’s (OMB) public budget database contains  historical data on outlays associated with each functional area, including  the energy area.
However, the federal budget does not provide a comprehensive source  for all federal outlays that might be related to energy production and  consumption. Instead, the 17 functional areas in the federal budget relate  to the primary area of a given account, even though the programs within  the account may serve a variety of purposes. As a result, the public  budget database may not identify all energy-related activities in the  energy functional area. For example, the federal budget identifies seven  agencies, including DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),  with outlays in the energy supply subfunction in fiscal year 2010.  However, as we found in February 2012, 17 federal agencies beside DOE  and USDA—such as the Departments of Defense and the Interior— implemented renewable energy initiatives for fiscal year 2010.
The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the congressional Joint  Committee on Taxation (JCT) report revenue loss estimates for energy- related tax expenditures. Both Treasury and JCT estimate the revenue  loss associated with each tax provision they have identified as a tax  expenditure. Treasury’s list is included in the President’s annual budget  submission; and JCT issues annual tax expenditure estimates as a stand- alone product. Both organizations calculate a tax expenditure as the  difference between tax liability under current law and what the tax liability  would be if the provision were eliminated and the item were treated as it  would be under a “normal” income tax. In general, the tax expenditure  lists that Treasury and JCT publish are similar, although these lists differ  somewhat in the number of tax expenditures reported and the estimated  revenue losses for particular expenditures. In addition, as with the federal  budget, both lists of tax expenditures are divided into different functional  areas, including one related to energy.
However, Treasury’s list and JCT’s list of tax expenditures may not  include all tax expenditures that provide a benefit to energy producers.  For example, both Treasury and JCT list the deduction for income  attributable to domestic production activities as a tax expenditure. This  tax expenditure allows a deduction of 6 percent from taxable income for  oil extraction, among other things. According to Treasury estimates,  repealing this provision would result in more than $17 billion in revenue  related to oil and natural gas production for fiscal years 2014 through  2023. However, because this tax expenditure is available to other  industries beside oil production, Treasury and JCT do not list this tax  expenditure under the energy functional area.
section_title: Appendix III: Information on Major Factors Influencing Fossil Energy Production and Consumption
paragraphs: This appendix provides more detailed information on U.S. production and  consumption of fossil energy from 2000 through 2013 and major factors,  including federal activities, that influenced fossil energy production and  consumption levels.
subsections: section_title: Natural Gas Production and Consumption
paragraphs: The year-to-year pattern of domestic production of natural gas fluctuated  from 2000 through 2006 and then began to increase around 2007,  according to Energy Information Administration (EIA) data, and as shown  in figure 3. Specifically, the United States produced about 19.2 trillion  cubic feet of natural gas in 2000; by 2005 and 2006, production had fallen  below 19 trillion cubic feet but then began to increase, reaching over 24  trillion cubic feet in 2012 and 2013. Domestic consumption of natural gas  exceeded domestic production throughout the period, with the difference  coming from imports, primarily from Canada. However, as shown in  figure 3, the difference between the domestic consumption and  production of natural gas generally decreased between 2007 and 2013,  leading to a reduction in natural gas imports.
Natural gas is used by a number of sectors in the economy, most notably  for electricity generation; for industrial use as a source of heat or as a  feedstock for petrochemical production, among other things; for  residential heating and other home uses; and for commercial heating and  other uses. Figure 4 shows the share of natural gas consumption by  sector in 2000 and 2013. Specifically, according to EIA data, natural gas  consumption for electricity generation (as well as other energy needs of  the electric power sector) increased from about 5.2 trillion cubic feet in  2000 to about 8.2 trillion cubic feet in 2013. Natural gas consumption for  commercial use also increased, from about 3.2 trillion cubic feet in 2000  to about 3.3 trillion cubic feet in 2013. Industrial and residential uses  declined over the same period.
section_title: Major Factors Influencing Natural Gas Production and Consumption
paragraphs: The studies and reports we reviewed indicated that increases in the  domestic production of natural gas were due primarily to increases in the  extraction of natural gas from shale formations. As shown in figure 5, the  production of natural gas from shale formations caused an increase in  total domestic natural gas production starting around 2008 and continuing  through 2012 (the latest year for which annual data were available).  According to EIA data, natural gas withdrawals from shale formations  increased from about 2 trillion cubic feet in 2007 to over 10 trillion cubic  feet in 2012. These increases were largely due to technological advances  in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing—a process that injects a  combination of water, sand, and chemical additives under high pressure  to create and maintain fractures in underground rock formations that allow  oil and natural gas to flow. For example, as we reported in January 2012,  improvements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing led to a boom  in the production of natural gas from shale formations. In addition,  according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), in recent years  the oil and gas industry improved its extraction rate of natural gas from  shale formations from about 5 percent to about 15 percent of total  estimated gas resources in the ground (thereby tripling the amount of  recoverable natural gas).
Increases in domestic natural gas production contributed to decreases in  domestic natural gas prices, according to CRS. The price of natural gas,  as with other commodities, is driven by supply and demand. The Henry  Hub spot market in Louisiana is the best known spot market for natural  gas. As shown in figure 6, annual prices for natural gas in the Henry Hub  spot market generally increased between 2000 and 2008 (although some  fluctuations occurred) before decreasing between 2008 and 2013.  Specifically, in 2000, the annual spot price was $4.31 per million British  thermal units (Btu) of natural gas. This price generally increased to $8.69  per million Btus in 2005 and $8.86 per million Btus 2008. Since 2008, the  annual price generally decreased to $3.73 per million Btus in 2013.
In recent years, natural gas prices in the United States were much lower  than in other parts of the world, according to CRS. This price difference  encouraged some American companies to apply for authorization to  export domestically produced liquefied natural gas from the contiguous 48  states. Specifically, since 2010, the Department of Energy (DOE) has  received more than 30 applications for permission to export liquefied  natural gas to countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the  United States. DOE has fully approved 3 applications and approved 6  others on the condition that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission  issues a satisfactory environmental review of the associated liquefied  natural gas export facility. Moreover, EIA has projected that the United  States could be a net exporter of liquefied natural gas by 2016.
section_title: Production and Consumption of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products
paragraphs: The United States produces crude oil, which is refined along with  imported crude oil into petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel, and  jet fuel. U.S. refineries use both domestically produced crude oil and  imported crude oil to produce petroleum products. According to EIA data,  there were 143 petroleum refineries in the United States as of January  2013, with a capacity to process 17.8 million barrels of crude oil per day.  The United States also both exports and imports petroleum products.
Domestic production of crude oil declined from 2000 through 2008,  continuing a downward trend beginning in the 1970s, but increased  beginning in 2009, according to EIA data. Specifically, as shown in figure  7, between 2000 and 2008, domestic crude oil production decreased from  an average of about 5.8 million barrels of oil per day to 5.0 million barrels  per day. However, by 2013, domestic crude oil production had increased  to an average of almost 7.5 million barrels per day, the highest level of oil  production since 1989. In 2013, an average of about 15.3 million barrels  per day of crude oil was refined into petroleum products at U.S. refineries.  As domestic crude oil production increased, imports of foreign crude oil  decreased. Specifically, crude oil imports decreased from an average of  about 9.8 million barrels per day in 2008 to 7.7 million barrels per day in  2013.
Overall domestic consumption of petroleum products—including gasoline,  diesel, and jet fuel—peaked in 2005 and then generally declined through  2013, according to EIA data. Specifically, as shown in figure 8,  consumption of petroleum products increased from an average of 19.7  million barrels per day in 2000 to 20.8 million barrels per day in 2005  before declining to between 18-19 million barrels per day in recent years.  Amid declining domestic consumption and somewhat increasing U.S.  refining capacity, refiners have increasingly exported petroleum products.  Specifically, U.S. exports of petroleum products grew from an average of  about 1.1 million barrels per day in 2005 to about 3.5 million barrels per  day in 2013. The United States had been a net importer of petroleum  products since 1949, but in 2011 it became a net exporter, primarily of  diesel.
The primary users of petroleum products in the United States are the  transportation and industrial sectors, according to EIA data. As shown in  figure 9, the transportation sector consumed the largest share of  petroleum products in 2000 and 2013 (at about 4.8 billion barrels). The  industrial sector consumed the next largest share of petroleum products  (at about 1.8 billion barrels in 2000 and about 1.7 billion barrels in 2013),  while the remaining sectors (commercial, residential, and electric power)  consumed the smallest share (at about 0.7 billion barrels in 2000 and  about 0.3 billion barrels in 2013). Overall, total consumption of petroleum  products increased from about 7.2 billion barrels in 2000 to about 7.6  billion barrels in 2007 before decreasing to about 6.9 billion barrels in  2013.
section_title: Major Factors Influencing Production and Consumption of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products
paragraphs: The studies and reports we reviewed indicated that increases in domestic  crude oil production came primarily from increased production from shale  formations. As we found in March 2014, the technological advances in  horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing that contributed to increasing  U.S. production of natural gas have also allowed companies that develop  petroleum resources to extract crude oil from shale and other formations  that were previously considered to be inaccessible because traditional  techniques did not yield sufficient amounts for economically viable  production. According to EIA data, much of the increase in crude oil  production has been from shale and other tight formations, such as the  Bakken formation in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford formation in Texas.  Production from these two states accounted for 87 percent of the  increase in U.S. crude oil production from 2008 through 2013.
Prices of crude oil increased considerably between 2000 and 2013 but  show a distinctive pattern, according to EIA data. First, crude oil prices  generally increased from 2000 to 2008. Crude oil is a widely traded global  commodity, and prices of crude oil are generally determined by global  supply and demand rather than exclusively by events in a single oil- producing country such as the United States. Since the mid‐1980s,  benchmark crude oil prices such as West Texas Intermediate in the  United States and Brent in Europe have served as reference points that  the global oil market uses for pricing other crude oils. As shown in figure  10, crude oil prices in these two markets increased from about $30 per  barrel in 2000 to almost $100 per barrel in 2008—one of the largest and  most sustained crude oil price increases since comparable data were  available. In 2009, crude oil prices in both markets decreased to about  $62 per barrel, reflecting the effects of the global economic recession of  2007 to 2009 and the consequent falling demand for petroleum products.  In 2010, crude oil prices in both markets increased.
Starting in 2010, increases in U.S. production of crude oil contributed to  lower prices for some domestic crude oils and may have had a small  effect on some global oil prices, according to EIA. Specifically, as shown  in figure 10, West Texas Intermediate crude oil began to sell at a large  discount relative to Brent crude oil starting around 2011. This price  divergence was due to increases in domestic crude oil production— existing crude oil pipelines were constrained in their ability to ship  additional quantities of oil from the midcontinental United States and  Canada to refineries, which limited the ability of this oil to reach global oil  markets. In terms of global effects, in 2013 U.S. crude oil production  grew more than the combined increase in the rest of the world, which  contributed to relatively stable global crude oil prices in 2013, according  to EIA.
section_title: Coal Production and Consumption
paragraphs: The United States has the largest recoverable coal reserves in the world,  according to EIA, and most domestically produced coal comes from five  states: Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.  Domestic production of coal fluctuated somewhat during the past decade  but declined by about 16 percent from 2008 through 2013, according to  EIA data. Specifically, as shown in figure 11, the United States produced  1.07 billion short tons of coal in 2000; by 2008, production had risen to  1.17 billion short tons. However, coal production fell below 1 billion short  tons by 2013—the lowest level in almost 2 decades, according to EIA  data. Domestic consumption of coal generally increased from 2000 (at  1.08 billion short tons) to 2007 (at 1.13 billion short tons). However,  starting in 2008, coal consumption generally decreased and reached 0.93  billion short tons in 2013. As domestic consumption of coal fell, the United  States generally exported more coal to Europe and Asia. The vast  majority of coal consumed in the United States is used for generating  electricity.
section_title: Major Factors Influencing Coal Production and Consumption
paragraphs: The studies and reports we reviewed indicated that the recent decrease  in domestic coal production and consumption came partly from declines  in the use of coal to generate electricity. In the past, the fuel cost of  generating one kilowatt-hour of electricity from natural gas had typically  been higher than that of coal, according to EIA. However, coal began  losing its price advantage over natural gas for electricity generation in  some parts of the country in 2009, particularly in the eastern United  States, according to EIA. In addition, new natural gas-fueled generating  units generally are able to convert fuel into electricity more efficiently than  existing coal-fueled generating units, meaning they can convert a unit of  fuel energy into more electricity than coal-fueled units. Newer designs of  coal-fueled units exist that can operate at higher efficiencies, but few  have been built in the United States. In addition, recently proposed or  finalized EPA regulations affecting coal-fueled electricity generating units  may also have played a role in recent decreases in domestic coal  production and consumption.
The price of coal depends on its type, in part because different types of  coal produce differing amounts of energy when burned. According to EIA,  two of the most common types in the United States are bituminous and  subbituminous coal. Bituminous coal is the oldest and most abundant  coal type found in the United States. West Virginia, Kentucky, and  Pennsylvania are the primary producers of bituminous coal.  Subbituminous coal contains less energy than bituminous coal; however,  large quantities are found in thick beds near the surface, resulting in low  mining cost and, correspondingly, lower prices. Wyoming produces the  vast majority of subbituminous coal. As shown in figure 12, annual U.S.  prices for bituminous and subbituminous coal generally increased from  2000 to 2012 (the latest year for which data are available). For example,  for bituminous coal, prices increased from $24.15 per short ton in 2000 to  $66.04 per short ton in 2012, or an increase of over 170 percent. Some of  these cost increases may be due to increases in coal transportation costs  and declines in mine productivity during this period, according to EIA. As  the price of coal increased, it reduced coal’s price advantage relative to  other energy sources, such as natural gas, which decreased in price over  this period.
section_title: Federal Activities That May Have Influenced Fossil Energy Production and Consumption
paragraphs: In addition to the major factors we identified above from the studies and  reports we reviewed, we identified a number of federal activities that may  have also played a role in influencing U.S. production and consumption of  fossil energy from 2000 through 2013. These activities included setting  standards and requirements for emissions from electricity generating  units, assuming risks associated with oil production, collecting excise  taxes and royalty payments, and providing tax expenditures and royalty  relief. Some of these activities provided an incentive to produce and  consume fossil energy, while others provided a disincentive for its  production and consumption.
subsections: section_title: Setting Standards and Requirements
paragraphs: The federal government established or strengthened a number of  standards and requirements related to fossil energy production from 2000  through 2013. For example, under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) establishes national ambient air quality  standards for six pollutants which states are, primarily, responsible for  attaining. States attain these standards, in part, by regulating emissions  of these pollutants from certain stationary sources, such as electricity  generating units. In particular, according to EPA, fossil fuel-fired electricity  generating units are among the largest emitters of sulfur dioxide and  nitrogen oxides, which have been linked to respiratory illnesses and acid  rain, as well as of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas  contributing to climate change. Numerous Clean Air Act requirements  apply to electricity generating units, including New Source Review, a  permitting process established in 1977. Under New Source Review,  owners of generating units must obtain a preconstruction permit that  establishes emission limits and requires the use of certain emissions  control technologies. New Source Review applies to (1) generating units  built after August 7, 1977, and (2) existing generating units—regardless of  the date built—that seek to undertake a “major modification,” a physical or  operational change that would result in a significant net increase in  emissions of a regulated pollutant.
In general, the cost of complying with New Source Review requirements  provided a disincentive for producing electricity from fossil energy  sources. As we found in June 2012, EPA has investigated most coal-fired  generating units at least once for compliance with New Source Review  requirements since 1999, and has alleged noncompliance at more than  half of the units it investigated. Specifically, of the 831 units EPA  investigated, 467 units were ultimately issued notices of violation, had  complaints filed in court, or were included in settlement agreements. In  total, EPA reached 22 settlements covering 263 units, which will require  affected unit owners to, among other things, install around $12.8 billion in  emissions controls. According to our analysis of EPA data, these  settlements will reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide by an estimated 1.8  million tons annually, and nitrogen oxides by an estimated 596,000 tons  annually.
section_title: Assuming Risk
paragraphs: The federal government assumed some risks related to fossil energy  production and consumption from 2000 through 2013. For example, the  federal government assumed financial risks associated with potential  cleanup costs for some oil spills, and the federal government acquired  billions of dollars worth of crude oil to hold in reserve in case of supply  disruptions, as discussed below:
Cleanup costs for oil spills. Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as  amended, which was enacted after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989,  the federal government established a “polluter pays” system that  places the primary burden of liability for costs of spills on the  responsible parties, up to a specified limit of liability. In general, the  level of potential financial liability under the act depends on the kind of  vessel or facility from which a spill originates and is limited in amount.  However, if the oil discharge is the result of gross negligence or willful  misconduct, or a violation of federal operation, safety, and  construction regulations, then liability under the act is unlimited. In  addition, the act provides the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to pay for oil  spill costs when the responsible party cannot or does not pay. The  fund’s primary revenue source is an 8-cent-per-barrel tax on  petroleum products—a small fraction of the price of a barrel in 2013— either produced in the United States or imported from other  countries. The fund is subject to a $1 billion cap on the amount of  expenditures from the fund per incident.
Stockpiling crude oil. Congress created the Strategic Petroleum  Reserve in 1975, following the Arab oil embargo of 1973 to 1974, to  help protect the U.S. economy from damage caused by oil supply  disruptions. The reserve is owned by the federal government and  operated by DOE. It can store up to 727 million barrels of crude oil in  salt caverns. The President has discretion to authorize release of oil in  the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to minimize significant supply  disruptions. In the event of such a disruption, the reserve can supply  oil to the market by either selling stored crude oil or trading this oil in  exchange for a larger amount of oil to be returned later. From fiscal  year 2000 through 2013, the federal government received almost $3.9  billion from the sale of crude oil from the reserve, spent about $0.5  billion to purchase crude oil, and spent $2.5 billion for operations and  maintenance of the reserve.
The assumption of liability by the federal government for some oil spills  may have provided an incentive for oil production and consumption by  potentially decreasing the overall cost associated with certain production- related activities. For example, the liability limitations established under  the Oil Pollution Act may have lowered costs for liability insurance or  other insurance paid for by oil producers. However, the extent to which  this federal intervention influenced changes in petroleum or natural gas  production or consumption is difficult to precisely measure. Moreover, the  fund—which is paid by oil producers—raises the cost of producing oil by a  small fraction, which may have a negative impact on oil production.
DOE’s operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve may have had little  to no impact on fossil energy production and consumption between 2000  and 2013. For example, we found in August 2006 that filling the Strategic  Petroleum Reserve from late 2001 through 2005 during a time of tight  supply and demand conditions had minimal impact on oil prices because  the volume was so small compared with world oil demand, according to  most of the experts with whom we spoke. However, some experts  believed the existence of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve may have a  stabilizing effect on oil prices, particularly during extreme supply or  demand events, whether or not it is actually used. If true, the reserve  could have had positive effects on oil producers or consumers by  reducing the risks associated with unstable prices.
section_title: Collecting or Forgoing Revenue
paragraphs: From 2000 through 2013, the federal government collected revenues  through excise taxes and royalty payments related to fossil energy  production and consumption while forgoing other related revenues  through tax expenditures and royalty relief. Regarding excise taxes, the  federal government collected about $637 billion through excise taxes  targeting or related to fossil energy—primarily motor fuels (gasoline,  diesel, and others)—from fiscal year 2000 through 2012. The federal  excise tax rate on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon (the same amount as  in 1993). Most revenues from these taxes are dedicated to the Highway  Trust Fund, which was established by Congress in 1956 and is a major  source of funding for various surface transportation programs. As shown  in figure 13, revenues from excise taxes targeting or related to fossil  energy were about $45 billion a year from fiscal year 2000 through 2004  and increased to about $50 billion a year for the rest of the period.
Regarding royalty payments, the federal government collected more than  $124 billion in revenues from royalty and other payments for federal oil,  gas, and coal leases from fiscal year 2003 through 2013. As shown in  figure 14, revenues from royalty and other payments increased from  almost $8 billion in fiscal year 2003 to $23.4 billion in fiscal year 2008,  then decreased to about $9 billion in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 before  increasing to about $13.2 billion in fiscal year 2013.
Regarding tax expenditures, the federal government incurred revenue  losses of almost $50 billion from fiscal year 2000 through 2013 due to 16  tax expenditures we identified as targeting or related to fossil energy  according to the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Joint  Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates. As shown in figure 15, revenue  losses associated with these 16 tax expenditures increased from less  than $2 billion in fiscal year 2000 to over $4.6 billion in both fiscal year  2006 and 2007. They decreased from fiscal year 2007 through 2010  before increasing to about $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2012 and declining to  $4.1 billion in fiscal year 2013.
Table 2 provides descriptions of these 16 federal tax expenditures. The  table also provides information from Treasury on tax expenditures that will  or have expired, in full or in part, due to an expiration of legislative  authority or some other expiration under the law as of the fall of 2014, as  well as on tax expenditures that currently have no expiration. In addition,  the table provides information on revenue loss estimates from Treasury  (unless otherwise specified).
The federal government may have incurred additional revenue losses  associated with other tax provisions related to fossil energy; however, we  were unable to identify data on the level of federal revenue losses. For  example, JCT and Treasury identified three tax provisions as being  related to the oil and gas industry but also broadly available to taxpayers  engaged in energy-related and non-energy-related activities, such as  manufacturing or trade. These three tax provisions are described in table  3. For these provisions, JCT and Treasury did not estimate annual  revenue losses attributable to fossil energy production or consumption for  fiscal year 2000 through 2013, and therefore this information was not  readily available.
Regarding royalty relief, the federal government provided nearly $12  billion in royalty relief for oil and gas production from 2000 through 2012,  according to Interior estimates. As shown in figure 16, revenue losses  associated with royalty relief increased from $40 million in 2000 to more  than $2 billion in 2011, before declining to about $1.9 billion in 2012 (the  most recent estimate available).
These federal activities—collecting revenues from excise taxes and  royalties and forgoing revenues from tax expenditures and royalty relief— may have influenced U.S. fossil energy production and consumption in  different ways, as described below:
Excise taxes. Because excise taxes raised prices on motor fuels,  they provided a disincentive for consuming such fuels. However,  because much of the revenue from these excise taxes was used to  improve roads and other transportation infrastructure, these taxes  could also have provided an incentive for motor vehicle use and  thereby increased consumption of motor fuels.
Royalties. Because royalty payments raised costs associated with  the development and sales of fossil energy, they provided a  disincentive to produce and consume fossil energy. However, we  cannot say to what extent the federal royalties provided a disincentive  for oil and gas development on federal lands relative to other places  because oil and gas companies that lease federal lands look for the  best economic terms across a wide range of land owners (such as  state, private, federal, and international owners). We found in 2008  that studies of many resource owners indicated that the federal  government collected less in total revenues than most other resource  owners, but we do not have more recent comparisons of revenues  collected.
Tax expenditures and royalty relief. In general, tax expenditures  and royalty relief provided incentives for fossil energy production by  lowering the costs associated with the exploration and development of  oil and gas resources.
section_title: Appendix IV: Information on Major Factors Influencing Nuclear Energy Production and Consumption
paragraphs: This appendix provides more detailed information on U.S. production and  consumption of nuclear energy from 2000 through 2013 and on major  factors, including federal activities, that may have influenced nuclear  energy production and consumption levels.
subsections: section_title: Nuclear Energy Production and Consumption
paragraphs: The United States has 100 operating commercial nuclear reactors, all of  which are used to generate electricity. The year-to-year pattern of  domestic production and consumption of nuclear energy fluctuated from  2000 through 2013, as shown in figure 17. In general, nuclear energy  production and consumption increased from 754 million megawatt-hours  in 2000 to 806 million megawatt-hours in 2007, according to Energy  Information Administration (EIA) data. From 2007 through 2010, nuclear  energy production and consumption remained steady between about 800  million megawatt-hours and 807 million megawatt-hours. From 2011  through 2013, nuclear energy production and consumption decreased  below 800 million megawatt-hours. The proportion of electricity generated  by nuclear power in the United States changed little during the period we  reviewed, with nuclear reactors accounting for about 20 percent of total  U.S. electricity generation in 2000 and about 19 percent in 2013.
section_title: Major Factors Influencing Nuclear Energy Production and Consumption
paragraphs: The studies and reports we reviewed indicated that recent decreases in  U.S. nuclear energy production and consumption may be due to a  number of major factors, including reductions in natural gas prices and  the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Regarding natural gas prices,  some nuclear plant operators cited price reductions as an important factor  in their decisions regarding nuclear power reactor operations. For  example, the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Vernon,  Vermont, began operations in 1972, and the owners obtained a renewed  license in 2011 to operate the plant for an additional 20 years. However,  in August 2013, the owners announced plans to permanently close the  plant in 2014. According to the owners, their decision to close the plant  was driven in part by lower natural gas prices, which had reduced the  comparative profitability of the plant.
In March 2011, a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami  devastated northeastern Japan and severely damaged the Fukushima  Daiichi nuclear power plant. The resulting radiological emergency  involved the most extensive release of radioactive material at a nuclear  power plant since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Following this release, the  Japanese government evacuated people within 12 miles of the plant, and  later extended the evacuation zone to 19 miles. In total, almost 150,000  people were evacuated. In response to the incident, Japan shut down all  of its nuclear power reactors, and concerns heightened about the safety  of commercial nuclear power plants worldwide. For example, Germany  closed 8 of the country’s 17 reactors and decided to shut down the  remainder by 2022. In the United States, the Fukushima incident affected  some plans to build new nuclear power plants. For example, in 2011, a  company planning to construct two nuclear reactors in Texas cited  uncertainties related to the Fukushima incident as a reason for  abandoning the project.
U.S. nuclear energy production and consumption trends may also have  been affected, to a more limited extent, by increases in the price of  uranium oxide, which is processed into fuel used by nuclear power  reactors. As shown in figure 18, uranium oxide prices have increased  considerably from 2000 to 2013, according to EIA data. Specifically, the  average domestic price of uranium oxide increased from $11.45 per  pound in 2000 to $52.51 per pound in 2013, an increase of more than 300  percent.
section_title: Federal Activities That May Have Influenced Nuclear Energy Production and Consumption
paragraphs: In addition to the major factors we identified above from the studies and  reports we reviewed, we identified a number of federal activities that may  have also played a role in influencing U.S. production and consumption of  nuclear energy from 2000 through 2013. These activities included setting  standards and requirements related to the operation of nuclear power  reactors, directly providing goods and services related to the storage of  spent nuclear fuel, assuming risk associated with the operation of nuclear  power reactors, and forgoing revenues associated with tax expenditures  for nuclear energy producers. Some of these activities provided an  incentive to produce and consume nuclear energy, while others provided  a disincentive for its production and consumption.
subsections: section_title: Setting Standards and Requirements
paragraphs: The federal government established or strengthened a number of  standards and requirements related to nuclear energy from 2000 through  2013. For example, after the Fukushima incident, the Nuclear Regulatory  Commission (NRC) accepted 12 recommendations from a task force that  NRC had convened in 2011 to review its processes and regulations and  determine whether lessons learned from the accident could inform its  oversight processes. The task force recommended that NRC require  licensees to reevaluate and upgrade seismic and flooding protection of  reactors and related equipment, strengthen capabilities at all reactors to  withstand loss of electrical power, and take other actions to better protect  their plants for a low-probability, high-impact event. NRC’s activities to  strengthen the safety and security of nuclear power plants after the  Fukushima incident may have increased the costs associated with  operating commercial nuclear power reactors, thereby providing a  disincentive for nuclear power production.
section_title: Directly Providing Goods and Services
paragraphs: The federal government engaged in activities related to providing for the  management of spent nuclear fuel—i.e., fuel that has been used and  removed from the reactor core of a nuclear plant—from 2000 through  2013. The nation currently has about 70,000 metric tons of commercial  spent nuclear fuel stored at 75 sites in 33 states. This fuel is extremely  hazardous: without protective shielding and proper handling, its intense  radioactivity can kill a person directly exposed to it or cause long-term  health hazards, such as cancer, as well as contaminate the environment.  The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 directed the Department of Energy  (DOE) to investigate sites for a federal deep geological repository for  spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. In 1987, Congress  amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to direct DOE to focus its efforts  only on Yucca Mountain in Nevada for a repository. The act, as amended,  authorized DOE to contract with commercial nuclear reactor operators to  take custody of spent fuel for disposal at the repository beginning in 1998.  DOE spent billions of dollars related to this effort and in 2008 submitted a  license application for the construction of a permanent repository at  Yucca Mountain to NRC, which has regulatory authority over the  construction and operation of a repository.
However, as we reported in August 2012:  In 2009, DOE announced that it planned to terminate its work related  to the Yucca Mountain repository and in 2010 filed a motion to  withdraw the license application. NRC’s licensing board denied the  motion, but DOE continued to take steps to dismantle the repository  project.
In September 2011, the NRC commissioners considered whether to  overturn or uphold the licensing board’s decision, but they were  evenly divided and unable to take final action on the matter. Instead,  the NRC commissioners directed the licensing board to suspend work  by September 30, 2011.
NRC’s failure to consider the application, among other things, was  contested in federal court. Several parties filed a petition against NRC  asking the federal court to compel NRC to provide a proposed  schedule with milestones and a date for approving or disapproving the  license application, among other things.
Federal activities related to the Yucca Mountain repository may have  provided a disincentive for nuclear energy production and consumption.  For example, DOE’s actions regarding its license application for the  construction of the repository may have caused uncertainty about the  federal government’s long-term strategy for storing nuclear waste  because Congress has not agreed upon a path forward. This uncertainty  may have provided a disincentive for some nuclear plant operators to stay  in the market or expand capacity because storing nuclear waste is  expensive.
section_title: Assuming Risk
paragraphs: The federal government assumed certain risks related to nuclear energy  production and consumption from 2000 through 2013. For example,  under the Price-Anderson Act, the federal government limited the liability  of nuclear plant operators in the case of a nuclear accident. The act  requires each licensee of a nuclear plant to have primary insurance  coverage equal to the maximum amount of liability insurance available  from private sources—currently $375 million—to settle any such claims  against it. In the event of an accident at any plant where liability claims  exceed the $375 million primary insurance coverage, the act also requires  licensees to pay retrospective premiums (also referred to as secondary  insurance). The act places a limit on the total liability per incident, which  is currently about $13 billion.
In addition, the federal government assumed risks related to nuclear  energy production and consumption by establishing a loan guarantee  program. Specifically, Section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005  authorized DOE to issue loan guarantees for projects that avoid, reduce,  or sequester greenhouse gases using new or significantly improved  technologies. In 2010, DOE made conditional commitments under  Section 1703 to provide $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for the  construction of two advanced nuclear reactors at the Vogtle Electric  Generating Plant in Georgia.
These federal activities provided an incentive for nuclear energy  production and consumption by decreasing the overall cost associated  with certain production-related activities. For example, according to the  Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Price-Anderson Act provides a  benefit to nuclear plant operators by reducing their cost of carrying liability  insurance. CBO estimated that the potential level of support was about  $600,000 annually per reactor, which would be about $62 million annually  for all reactors in the United States. Without the liability limitations  provided by the Price-Anderson Act, the cost of obtaining insurance for  nuclear power plant operators might have been higher. Consequently, the  act may have supported higher levels of nuclear power production in the  United States between 2000 and 2013 than would have otherwise  occurred because the lower cost provided an incentive for increased  production and consumption.
section_title: Forgoing Revenue
paragraphs: The federal government incurred revenue losses related to nuclear  energy production and consumption from 2000 through 2013. Specifically,  we identified one tax expenditure targeting nuclear energy that resulted in  $7.9 billion in revenue losses from fiscal year 2000 through 2013. This  tax expenditure—the special tax rate for nuclear decommissioning  reserve funds—increased from $100 million in fiscal year 2000 to $1.1  billion in fiscal year 2013, as shown in figure 19. Under the special tax  rate for nuclear decommissioning reserve funds, taxpayers (e.g., utilities)  who are responsible for the costs of decommissioning nuclear power  plants can elect to create reserve funds to be used to pay for  decommissioning. The funds receive special tax treatment: amounts  contributed are deductible in the year the contributions are made and are  not included in the taxpayer’s gross income until the year they are  distributed, thus effectively postponing tax on the contributions. Amounts  actually spent on decommissioning are deductible in the year they are  made. Gains from the funds’ investments are subject to a 20 percent tax  rate—a lower rate than that which applies to most other corporate  income. In general, this tax expenditure supported nuclear energy  production and consumption by lowering the costs of nuclear energy  production and providing an incentive to engage in nuclear power  production.
section_title: Appendix V: Information on Major Factors Influencing Renewable Energy Production and Consumption
paragraphs: This appendix provides more detailed information on U.S. production and  consumption of renewable energy from 2000 through 2013 and on major  factors, including federal activities, that influenced renewable energy  production and consumption levels.
subsections: section_title: Renewable Energy Production and Consumption
paragraphs: U.S. production and consumption of renewable energy generally  increased from 2000 through 2013, as shown in figure 20, according to  Energy Information Administration (EIA) data. Specifically, in terms of  energy content (i.e., British thermal units ), production and  consumption of all sources of renewable energy—including liquid biofuels  (such as ethanol and biodiesel), other forms of biomass (i.e., wood and  waste), hydroelectric power, geothermal, wind, and solar—increased from  6.1 quadrillion Btus in 2000 to 9.2 quadrillion Btus in 2013. As a  proportion of total energy consumption, consumption of renewable energy  increased from about 6 percent in 2000 to 9 percent in 2013.  Hydroelectric power and wood were the two largest sources of renewable  energy during this time period and accounted for about 50 percent of all  renewable energy consumed in 2013. However, the overall increase in  domestic production and consumption of renewable energy from 2000  through 2013 can be attributed primarily to increases in the production  and consumption of ethanol, wind energy, and solar energy.
section_title: Ethanol Production and Consumption
paragraphs: Domestically produced ethanol primarily comes from corn grown in the  Midwest; the cornstarch is converted into sugar and then fermented and  distilled into ethanol. Ethanol is used as a transportation fuel; almost all  ethanol is blended into gasoline as an additive to make fuel containing up  to 10 percent ethanol by volume. As shown in figure 21, ethanol  production increased from 1.6 billion gallons in 2000 to almost 14 billion  gallons in 2011 and about 13 billion gallons in both 2012 and 2013.  Consumption of ethanol followed a similar pattern until 2010, when  domestic consumption of ethanol remained relatively flat at around 13  billion gallons per year. The United States increased its exports of ethanol  beginning in 2010, mostly to Brazil and Canada.
section_title: Major Factors Influencing Ethanol Production and Consumption
paragraphs: The studies and reports we reviewed indicated that several federal  activities had a major impact on the increase in ethanol production and  consumption—most notably federal tax expenditures and requirements  for the use of ethanol in transportation fuel. Regarding federal tax  expenditures, alcohol fuel credits provided a 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit  to gasoline suppliers who blend ethanol with gasoline. According to the  Department of the Treasury (Treasury) data, the alcohol fuel credits  resulted in more than $39 billion in revenue losses from fiscal year 2000  through 2013. As shown in figure 22, revenue losses associated with  alcohol fuel credits increased from about $0.9 billion in fiscal year 2000 to  $7 billion in fiscal year 2011, before decreasing to $3.7 billion in fiscal  year 2012 and about $50 million in fiscal year 2013.
Regarding federal requirements, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct)  created a federal renewable fuel standard that generally required gasoline  and diesel sold in the United States to contain 4 billion gallons of  renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, in 2006 and 7.5 billion  gallons in 2012. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007  (EISA) expanded the renewable fuel standard by requiring that U.S.  transportation fuel contain 9 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2008,  with the amount required increasing annually to 36 billion gallons in  2022. The 36-billion-gallon total must include at least 21 billion gallons of  advanced biofuels (defined as renewable fuels other than ethanol derived  from corn starch that meet certain criteria) and can include up to 15 billion  gallons of conventional biofuels (defined as ethanol derived from  cornstarch).
In our previous work, we found that the alcohol fuel credits were important  in establishing and expanding the domestic ethanol industry. However,  we also found that the alcohol fuel credits became less important over  time for sustaining the ethanol industry because (1) most of the capital  investment had already been made and (2) the credits were duplicative  with the renewable fuel standard. We recommended in 2009 that  Congress consider modifying or phasing out the alcohol fuel credits.  Congress allowed the alcohol fuel credits to expire at the end of 2011.
In addition to the alcohol fuel credits and renewable fuel standard, the  federal government may have influenced ethanol production and  consumption from 2000 through 2013 in a number of other ways,  according to the studies and reports we reviewed, including the activities  described below. While the precise effects of these activities on changes  in ethanol production and consumption are difficult to measure, some of  these activities provided incentives for the production and consumption of  ethanol.
Requirements for federal fleets to use ethanol and other  alternative fuels. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires that 75  percent of all vehicles acquired by the federal fleet in fiscal year 1999  and afterward be “alternative fuel vehicles,” which can use ethanol  and blends of 85 percent or more of ethanol with gasoline, among  other fuels. EPAct generally requires that all such vehicles be fueled  with alternative fuel. In addition, EISA requires that no later than  October 2015 and each year thereafter, agencies must achieve a 10  percent increase in vehicle alternative fuel consumption relative to a  baseline established by the Energy Secretary for fiscal year 2005.
Excise taxes. The federal excise tax rate on ethanol in motor fuels is  18.4 cents per gallon. We did not separately analyze the portion of  revenues from excise taxes on ethanol from the portion on gasoline.  However, we believe the effects of these excise taxes may be similar  to the effects of excise taxes on gasoline.
Another factor likely affecting ethanol production and consumption from  2000 through 2013 was the price of ethanol relative to the prices of corn  and gasoline, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)  research. Ethanol prices generally increased from 2000 through 2013,  according to USDA data, as shown in figure 23. Specifically, ethanol  prices increased from an annual average of $1.35 per gallon in 2000 to  $2.47 per gallon in 2013. Because ethanol is used as a gasoline  substitute, and because nearly all ethanol produced in the United States  comes from corn, the relationship between prices of ethanol, gasoline,  and corn is complex. As gasoline prices rise, ethanol’s appeal as a  substitute increases, as does the profitability of ethanol production and  the demand for corn. As a result, according to USDA’s Economic  Research Service, prices of corn, ethanol, and gasoline have become  more interrelated in recent years. Specifically, from March 2008 to  March 2011, ethanol supply and demand accounted for about 23 percent  of the variation in the price of corn, while corn market conditions  accounted for about 27 percent of ethanol’s price variation. At the same  time, about 16 and 17 percent of gasoline price variation could be  attributed to ethanol and corn markets conditions, respectively.
section_title: Production and Consumption of Wind and Solar Energy
paragraphs: Wind is transformed into electricity using wind turbines. In terms of the  electricity generated from wind turbines, domestic production and  consumption of wind energy increased from 5.6 million megawatt-hours in  2000 to 167.7 million megawatt-hours in 2013 (an increase of almost  3,000 percent), as shown in figure 24. According to the Department of  Energy (DOE), wind energy comprised 43 percent of all additions to U.S.  generating capacity in 2012, overtaking natural gas-fired electricity  generation as the leading source of new capacity for that year.
Solar energy is used to heat, cool, and power homes and businesses  using a variety of technologies that convert sunlight into usable energy.  The most widely used solar technology is the photovoltaic cell, which  uses semiconducting materials to convert sunlight into electricity. Sunlight  can also be used to heat water (for later use) or to boil water, which  produces steam that can be used in a turbine to generate electricity. In  terms of the electricity generated from solar energy, domestic production  and consumption of solar energy increased from about 0.5 million  megawatt-hours in 2000 to 9.3 million megawatt-hours in 2013 (an  increase of almost 1,900 percent), as shown in figure 25. According to the  Solar Energy Industries Association, photovoltaic solar installations grew  76 percent from 2011 to 2012, and 8 of the 10 largest photovoltaic  installations in the United States were built in 2012.
section_title: Major Factors Influencing Production and Consumption of Wind and Solar Energy
paragraphs: The studies and reports we reviewed indicated that the increase in wind  and solar energy production and consumption resulted from a number of  major factors—most notably state policies and federal activities, as well  as technological advances. Regarding state activities, many states have  created policies known as renewable portfolio standards that encouraged  the production and use of renewable energy. These state policies  generally require a percentage of electricity sold or generated in the state  to come from eligible renewable resources, including wind and solar  energy. According to EIA, 29 states and the District of Columbia had  enforceable renewable portfolio standards or similar laws as of October  2013. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), state  policies have been the primary creator of demand for wind projects.
Regarding federal activities, the studies and reports we reviewed  indicated that the federal government influenced increases in the  production and consumption of wind and solar energy primarily through  tax incentives. Specifically, the production tax credit and the investment  tax credit, along with a related program that provided grants in lieu of  these tax credits, resulted in almost $14 billion in revenue losses and  almost $20 billion in outlays from fiscal year 2000 through 2013. These  tax credits and grants, which are described below, supported wind and  solar energy production by lowering the costs associated with production  and providing an incentive to those firms engaged in the construction and  operation of wind and solar energy projects.
Production tax credit. This credit provided a 10-year, inflation- adjusted income tax credit based on the amount of renewable energy  produced at wind and other qualified facilities. The amount of the  credit varied depending upon the source. The value of the credit was  2.2 cents per kilowatthour in 2012 for certain resources (e.g., wind,  geothermal, and certain biomass electricity production) and was  raised to 2.3 cents per kilowatthour in 2013. This credit resulted in  about $9.6 billion in revenue losses from fiscal year 2000 through  2013. Specifically, as shown in figure 26, revenue losses associated  with this tax credit increased from $40 million in fiscal year 2000 to  $1.5 billion or more annually from fiscal year 2010 through 2013. This  credit, which has periodically expired and then been extended, is  available to facilities for which construction began before January 1,  2014. As we reported in March 2013, new additions of wind energy  capacity fell dramatically in years following the credit’s expiration.
Investment tax credit. This credit, which has not expired, provides  an income tax credit for business investments in solar systems and  small wind turbines, among other things. Investments in solar and  small wind turbine systems qualify for a 30 percent tax credit. In  addition, temporary provisions enacted under the American Recovery  and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) allow taxpayers to  claim this credit for property that otherwise would have qualified for  the production tax credit. This credit resulted in over $4 billion in  revenue losses from fiscal year 2000 through 2013. As shown in  figure 26, no revenue loss estimates were reported for this tax credit  from fiscal year 2000 through 2005; revenue losses then generally  increased from $80 million in fiscal year 2006 to almost $2 billion in  fiscal year 2013.
Section 1603 program. Section 1603 of the Recovery Act, as  amended, allows taxpayers eligible for the production or investment  tax credit to receive a payment from the Treasury in lieu of a tax  credit. This Treasury program provided almost $20 billion in outlays  from fiscal year 2009 through 2013, as shown in figure 26, of which  about $13 billion were related to wind energy projects, and about $4  billion were associated with solar energy projects. This program,  which is still available in some cases, applies to projects placed in  service during 2009, 2010, or 2011, or afterward if construction began  on the property during the specific years and the property is placed in  service by a credit termination date (e.g., January 1, 2017 for certain  energy property).
In addition to these tax credits, the studies and reports we reviewed  indicated that the federal government provided incentives for the  production and consumption of wind and solar energy in other important  ways, including through the following activities:
Requirements for purchasing electricity. Under EPAct, federal  agencies’ consumption of electricity from renewable sources has  generally been required— to the extent economically feasible and  technologically practicable—to meet or exceed 5 percent of total  consumption in fiscal years 2010 through 2012, and 7.5 percent in  fiscal year 2013 and thereafter. According to DOE’s most recent  data, federal agencies spent about $57 million in electricity purchases  from renewable sources in fiscal year 2012.
Loan guarantees. DOE’s Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan  Guarantee Program included a temporary program for the rapid  deployment of renewable energy projects, among other things. As  shown in table 4, DOE guaranteed 23 loans totaling more than $14  billion for wind and solar energy projects. Most of these loans (15 of  23) and most of the amount guaranteed went to projects to produce  and sell electricity generated from solar energy. There have been two  defaults on guaranteed loans, both for projects involving the  manufacture of solar energy equipment. However, most of the long- term total estimated cost to the government is associated with solar  generation projects. The authority to enter into loan guarantees  under DOE’s temporary program expired on September 30, 2011.
As a result of required federal purchases of electricity from renewable  sources, the federal government provided incentives to produce wind and  solar energy. In addition, through the loan guarantee program described  above, the federal government assumed risks of defaults on loans to  firms engaged in developing wind and solar energy projects. These  federal actions had the potential to lower the costs for some of these  projects. Such lower costs could have led to certain projects being  financed that otherwise may not have been developed.
Along with federal activities, the studies and reports we reviewed  indicated that technological advances played a role in influencing  increases in production and consumption of wind and solar energy. For  example, according to DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory  (NREL), wind turbine manufacturers increased turbine performance by  steadily increasing the turbine height and rotor diameter of their turbines  from 2000 through 2010. In addition, the average capacity of wind  turbines installed in the United States has more than doubled since  2000—increasing from 0.88 megawatts in 2000 to 1.95 megawatts in  2012, according to NREL. Regarding solar technology, technological  innovation—along with improved manufacturing processes and growing  markets—resulted in declining costs associated with the manufacture of  photovoltaic technologies, according to a 2012 DOE study.
section_title: Appendix VI: Federal Tax Expenditures, Outlays, and Loan Guarantees Related to Renewable Energy
paragraphs: Table 5 provides descriptions of the three federal tax expenditures we  identified in appendix V as targeting or related to ethanol, wind energy,  and solar energy, as well as four additional federal tax expenditures we  identified as more broadly targeting or related to renewable energy. The  table also provides information from the Department of the Treasury  (Treasury) on tax expenditures that will or have expired, in full or in part,  due to an expiration of legislative authority or some other expiration under  the law as of the fall of 2014, as well as on tax expenditures that currently  have no expiration. In addition, the table provides information on revenue  loss estimates from Treasury (unless otherwise specified).
Table 6 provides a description of the federal program we identified in  appendix V as targeting or related to wind and solar energy, as well as  two additional federal programs we identified as more broadly targeting or  related to renewable energy. The table also provides information reported  by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on outlays.
Table 7 provides a description of the federal loan guarantee program we  identified in appendix V as targeting or related to wind and solar energy,  as well as an additional federal loan guarantee program we identified as  more broadly targeting or related to renewable energy. The table also  provides information on disbursements and estimated costs reported by  OMB and provided by DOE.
section_title: Appendix VII: Information on Other Federal Activities Related to Aspects of U.S. Energy Production and Consumption
paragraphs: This appendix provides more detailed information on other federal  activities that were not targeted specifically at fossil, nuclear, or  renewable energy production and consumption but may have influenced  aspects of U.S. energy production and consumption from 2000 through  2013. It also provides information on federal energy-related research and  development (R&D).
subsections: section_title: Federal Activities Not Targeted at a Specific Energy Source
paragraphs: The studies and reports we reviewed indicated that a number of federal  activities may have influenced U.S. energy production and consumption  from 2000 through 2013 but were not targeted at a specific energy  source. These activities included setting standards and requirements for  energy efficiency, selling electricity, providing loans and loan guarantees  related to energy efficiency, making outlays for energy consumption and  energy efficiency, and forgoing revenues through tax expenditures for  electricity transmission and energy efficiency, among other things.
subsections: section_title: Setting Standards and Requirements
paragraphs: The federal government established or strengthened a number of  standards and requirements generally related to energy production and  consumption from 2000 through 2013. For example, since the 1970s, the  federal government has regulated vehicle fuel economy through  corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, which originally  required manufacturers to meet a single fleetwide standard for all cars  and either a single standard or class standards for light trucks. The  Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) instituted several  changes to CAFE standards in 2007, such as moving from a single fleet  standard to an attribute-based standard. In 2009, the U.S. administration  announced a new policy to increase vehicle fuel economy by  strengthening CAFE standards and aligning them with the first  greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles, which would be  administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The  Department of Transportation and EPA established a national program for  these two sets of standards by issuing coordinated regulations covering  vehicle model years 2012 to 2025 in May 2010 and October 2012.  Vehicle manufacturers will have to meet more stringent fuel economy  standards, which are projected to be equivalent to over 50 miles per  gallon by 2025.
In addition, since the 1970s, the federal government has established  minimum efficiency standards requiring that certain products, such as  residential appliances, commercial equipment, and lighting products,  meet specified energy efficiency standards before they can be sold in the  United States. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 required  the Department of Energy (DOE) to set minimum energy-efficiency  standards for manufacturers of specified categories of consumer products  such as refrigerators, dishwashers, furnaces, and hot water heaters. The  statute was later amended (e.g., by the Energy Policy Act of 2005   and EISA) to include additional categories of consumer products.  Manufacturers’ compliance with the standards is mandatory. The statute  further requires DOE to set and periodically review and revise standards  for these product categories to achieve the maximum level of energy  efficiency that is technically feasible and economically justified.
The federal standards for vehicle fuel economy and for energy efficiency  standards in products provided disincentives for overall energy production  and consumption. Specifically, as we concluded in August 2007, the  CAFE program reduced oil consumption by cars and light trucks from  what it would have otherwise been, and the evidence suggested that  increasing CAFE standards would save additional oil in the future. In  addition, as we found in March 2013, DOE estimated that, from the  inception of the federal minimum efficiency standards program in 1975  through 2005, consumer benefits from these standards amounted to  about $64 billion. DOE projected that the standards will save consumers  $241 billion by 2030 and $269 billion by 2045.
section_title: Directly Providing Goods and Services
paragraphs: The federal government directly provided goods and services generally  related to energy production and consumption from 2000 through 2013.  For example, the federal government is the largest owner of electricity- generating capacity in the country and owns significant electricity  transmission assets. Development of these resources was initially  pursued as part of efforts to provide electricity to rural areas, control  flooding, and provide irrigation. Five federal utilities—four power  marketing administrations and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)— provide electricity and transmission services to customers in their  regions. The power marketing administrations sell power produced  primarily at federal hydroelectric dams and projects that are owned and  operated by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation, the  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or the International Boundary and Water  Commission. TVA markets electricity produced at its own fossil, nuclear,  and hydroelectric energy facilities.
In October 2011, we reported on several features of TVA’s operations as  a federally owned electric utility that provided incentives for energy  production and consumption in its power service area—covering about  80,000 square miles in the southeastern United States, including almost  all of Tennessee and parts of Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia,  North Carolina, and Virginia, with a population of more than nine million  people. In fiscal year 2010, TVA sold more than 173 million megawatt- hours of electricity to customers. To meet this customer demand, TVA  generates electricity at 11 coal-fired plants, 11 natural gas-fired plants, 3  nuclear plants, and 29 hydroelectric dams, among other things. Under the  TVA Act of 1933, as amended, TVA has not been subject to many of the  regulatory oversight requirements that commercial utilities must satisfy.  TVA is also exempt from paying federal and state taxes and can borrow  funds for investment in its power system at very competitive interest rates  as a result of its triple-A credit rating—which, as we have found, is based  partly on its status as a federal entity. Additionally, unlike many utilities,  TVA charges rates for its electric power that are not subject to review and  approval by state public utility commissions. However, in setting TVA’s  rates, TVA’s Board must comply with the primary objectives of the TVA  Act, including the objective that power shall be sold at rates as low as are  feasible.
section_title: Assuming Risk
paragraphs: Through loan and loan guarantee programs, the federal government  assumed risks generally related to energy production and consumption  from 2000 through 2013. Specifically, we identified three federal  programs that provided loans and loan guarantees targeting energy  efficiency and other activities from fiscal year 2000 through 2013. These  programs are described below:
Direct and Guaranteed Electric Loan Program. This U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) program, authorized under the  Rural Electrification Act of 1936, provides loans and loan guarantees  to establish and improve electric service in rural areas, and to assist  electric borrowers in implementing demand side management, energy  efficiency and conservation programs, and on-grid and off-grid  renewable energy systems. These loans and loan guarantees provide  financing under favorable terms to eligible nonprofit utility  organizations, such as electric co-ops and public utility districts, as  well as to for-profit entities. According to USDA, the program supports  approximately 700 electric system borrowers in 46 states. This  program disbursed about $45 billion in loans from fiscal year 2000  through 2013 with a total cost of about $0.7 billion. To the extent that  some of these loans supported energy efficiency and conservation  programs, this program provided a disincentive for energy production  and consumption. However, because some loans may have  supported renewable energy systems, this program also provided  incentives for energy production and consumption.
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loan program.
This DOE program, authorized under EISA, provides loans to support  development of advanced technology vehicles and associated  components in the United States that would increase the fuel  economy of U.S. passenger vehicles. EISA authorized DOE to make  $25 billion in loans under this program. As we reported in March 2013,  DOE has used the program to make five loans worth $8.4 billion.  Two of the loans in this program defaulted, and one has been paid  back in full. The current estimated cost of the loans is about $0.3  billion. Because these loans supported improvements in the fuel  economy of passenger vehicles, this program provided disincentives  for energy production and consumption.
Green Retrofit Program for Multifamily Housing. This Department  of Housing and Urban Development program, established by the  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act),  funds energy and green retrofits to selected affordable multifamily  properties through grants and loans. Eligible projects include the  installation of efficient heating and cooling systems and appliances,  and the upgrade of units to reduce water usage, increase indoor air  quality, and provide other various environmental benefits. This  program disbursed about $83 million in loans from fiscal year 2000  through 2013 with a total cost of about $66 million.
In addition, we identified other federal loan programs generally related to  energy production and consumption, but for which we were unable to  identify data on the level of federal support. For example, the Farm  Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, as amended, established the  Rural Energy for America Program within USDA to provide loan  guarantees to agricultural producers and small businesses in rural areas  to assist with purchasing and installing energy efficiency improvements  and renewable energy systems. Costs associated with loans from this  program totaled about $17 million from fiscal year 2000 through 2013;  however, USDA did not report costs specifically related to energy  efficiency separately from costs related to renewable energy.
section_title: Providing Funds
paragraphs: The federal government provided funds generally related to energy  production and consumption from 2000 through 2013. Specifically, we  identified five federal programs and activities with almost $51 billion in  outlays from fiscal year 2000 through 2013. Of these total outlays, about  $40 billion were associated with the Department of Health and Human  Services’ Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides  funds to low-income households to help cover home heating and cooling  costs. As shown in figure 27, outlays associated with this program  generally increased from fiscal year 2000 through 2010, then decreased  through fiscal year 2013. Specifically, program outlays rose from $1.5  billion in fiscal year 2000 to $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2010 before  decreasing to $3.5 billion in fiscal year 2013. Because this program made  outlays to low-income households to purchase energy, it provided an  incentive for energy production and consumption. However, this spending  cannot easily be attributed to specific energy sources or fuel types  because funds supporting energy purchases in different regions would  encourage consumption of different mixes of these fuels, reflecting  regional differences in how energy is produced.
Table 8 provides a description of these five federal programs and  activities, as well as providing information reported by the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) and provided by DOE on outlays.
We also identified other outlays that generally related to energy  production and consumption, but for which we were unable to identify  data on the level of federal support. For example, USDA’s High Energy  Cost Grants program, authorized under the Rural Electrification Act of  1936, provides grants for energy generation, transmission, and  distribution facilities serving rural communities with annual average home  energy costs that exceed 275 percent of the national average. Applicants  may receive grants for on-grid and off-grid renewable energy systems, as  well as energy conservation and efficiency projects. This program  provided $202 million in outlays from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year  2013; however, USDA did not report on program outlays specifically  related to electricity and energy efficiency separately from outlays related  to renewable energy. In general, this program provided incentives for  energy production and consumption through its support for energy  generation and transmission to rural communities, while providing  disincentives for energy consumption through energy conservation and  efficiency projects.
section_title: Forgoing Revenue
paragraphs: The federal government may have influenced general aspects of energy  production and consumption from 2000 through 2013 through the tax  code. Specifically, we identified 13 tax expenditures that resulted in more  than $65 billion in federal revenue losses from fiscal year 2000 through  fiscal year 2013. As shown in figure 28, most of these revenue losses  ($42 billion or 64 percent) were associated with a tax expenditure  excluding employer-paid transportation benefits from taxation, including a  number of benefits related to parking, transit passes, and vanpool  transportation, among other things. This tax expenditure provided an  incentive for the production and consumption of transportation fuels by  reducing costs associated with parking. However, it also provided a  disincentive for production and consumption of transportation fuels by  reducing costs associated with the use of public transportation, which  may rely on electricity or other forms of energy.
Table 9 provides descriptions of these 13 federal tax expenditures. It also  provides information from the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) on  tax expenditures that will or have expired, in full or in part, due to an  expiration of legislative authority or some other expiration under the law  as of the summer of 2014, as well as on tax expenditures that currently  have no expiration. In addition, the table provides information from  Treasury on revenue loss estimates (unless otherwise specified).
In addition, we identified other provisions of the tax code that are  generally related to energy production and consumption, but for which  data on the level of federal support were not readily available. For  example, tax-exempt municipal bonds allow publicly-owned utilities to  obtain lower interest rates than those available from either private  borrowers or the U.S. Treasury. Lower interest rates reduce borrowing  costs for such utilities and provide incentives for producing electricity.  While tax-exempt municipal bonds are used by energy industries such as  electric utilities, the group of eligible borrowers also includes water  utilities, telecommunication facilities, waste treatment plants, and other  publicly-owned entities. OMB and the Joint Committee on Taxation did  not provide estimates of annual revenue losses related to electric utilities  for fiscal year 2000 through 2013 for this provision. Consequently, we  cannot report the amount of forgone revenue related to this provision.
section_title: Federal R&D Related to Specific Energy Sources
paragraphs: We identified four federal programs that made more than $20 billion in  outlays for R&D related to fossil, nuclear, and renewable energy from  fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2013. The vast majority of these  outlays were made by three DOE program offices—the Office of Fossil  Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, and Office of Energy Efficiency and  Renewable Energy. As shown in figure 29, federal outlays related to R&D  for fossil, nuclear, and renewable energy generally increased from fiscal  year 2000 to 2013, although some variation occurred. Specifically, federal  outlays for R&D related to fossil energy increased from about $412 million  in fiscal year 2000 to about $1 billion in fiscal year 2012 and $0.9 billion in  2013. Outlays for R&D related to nuclear energy increased over the time  period to almost $1 billion in fiscal year 2009, and then decreased  through fiscal year 2013. In addition, outlays for R&D related to  renewable energy increased to about $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2012 and  just over $1 billion in 2013. According to the Energy Information  Administration (EIA), new or expanded programs associated with the  Recovery Act had a significant impact on energy-related R&D spending.
Table 10 provides a description of these four federal R&D programs and  activities; it also provides information reported by OMB and provided by  DOE on outlays.
These outlays provided funding for a variety of energy-specific R&D at  federally owned laboratories, as illustrated in the following examples:
Researchers at DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory  conducted R&D to resolve the environmental, supply, and reliability  constraints of producing and using fossil resources. One area of R&D  involved combustion science, which provides the basis for a new  generation of advanced fossil fuel conversion technologies to meet  future demands for efficient, clean, and cost-effective energy  production. Combustion science researchers at the laboratory  conducted exploratory and applied research in the areas of  combustion science technology, and dynamics of engines and other  energy conversion devices. This research included modeling,  simulation, and laboratory-scale studies of advanced combustion  turbines, among other things.
Researchers at DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory conducted R&D on  advanced nuclear reactor designs, including the Next Generation  Nuclear Power Plant project, which are intended to offer safety and  other improvements over the current generation of nuclear power  plants. EPAct formally established the Next Generation Nuclear Plant  as a DOE project and designated the Idaho National Laboratory as  the lead laboratory and construction site for the plant and directs the  laboratory to carry out cost-shared R&D, design, and construction  activities with industrial partners.
Researchers at DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory  (NREL) conducted R&D that led to technological advances for wind  and solar energy technologies. For example, laboratory researchers  collaborated with wind turbine manufacturers to develop variable- speed turbines to take advantage of lower wind conditions. This  innovation allowed a turbine manufacturer to develop and refine its  1.5-megawatt turbines. In addition, laboratory researchers  collaborated with solar cell manufacturers to refine their  manufacturing techniques before going into full production. This  collaboration helped a company to become the world’s largest  manufacturer of thin-film solar modules.
section_title: Federal R&D Generally Related to Energy Production and Consumption
paragraphs: We identified four DOE programs that provided funding for R&D that were  not linked to a specific energy source but related to more general aspects  of energy production and consumption. These programs made about  $47 billion in outlays from fiscal year 2000 through 2013 for R&D related  to basic energy sciences, energy efficiency and energy conservation, and  electricity grid reliability, among other things. As shown in figure 30,  federal outlays for these programs generally increased from fiscal year  2000 to fiscal year 2013, although some variation occurred. Specifically,  federal outlays for R&D related to energy efficiency and conservation  increased from about $670 million in fiscal year 2000 to over $6 billion in  fiscal year 2011 and declining to about $2.0 billion in fiscal year 2013.  Outlays for R&D related to basic energy science—funded by DOE’s  Office of Science—increased from more than $700 million in fiscal year  2000 to about $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2013. In addition, outlays for R&D  related to other activities, such as electricity delivery and energy  reliability, increased from about $10 million in fiscal year 2003 to about  $1.6 billion in fiscal years 2011, before declining to about $1.1 billion in  fiscal year 2013. As mentioned above, according to EIA, new or  expanded programs associated with the Recovery Act had a significant  impact on energy-related R&D spending.
Table 11 provides a description of these four federal R&D programs and  activities; it also provides information reported by OMB on outlays.
These outlays provided funding for a variety of R&D programs at federally  owned laboratories and by nongovernmental entities. For example,  researchers at NREL developed a new smart occupancy sensor in 2013  to control lighting and reduce energy costs that could lead to significant  energy savings in commercial buildings. In addition, as we found in  January 2012, since first receiving an appropriation in the Recovery Act,  the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy program awarded more  than $500 million to universities, public and private companies, and  national laboratories to fund 181 projects that attempt to make  transformational advances to a variety of energy technologies related to  energy efficiency and renewable fuels, among other things.
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Chris Murray (Assistant  Director), Quindi Franco, Jason Holliday, and David Messman made key  contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Nicole  Dery, Cindy Gilbert, Carol Henn, Jon Ludwigson, Cynthia Norris,  MaryLynn Sergent, Anne Stevens, and Barbara Timmerman.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Oil and Gas Transportation: Department of Transportation Is Taking  Actions to Address Rail Safety, but Additional Actions Are Needed to  Improve Pipeline Safety. GAO-14-667. Washington, D.C.: August 21,  2014.
Petroleum Refining: Industry’s Outlook Depends on Market Changes and  Key Environmental Regulations. GAO-14-249. Washington, D.C.: March  14, 2014.
Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly  Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public Information.   GAO-14-140. Washington, D.C.: December 18, 2013.
Oil and Gas Resources: Actions Needed for Interior to Better Ensure a  Fair Return. GAO-14-50. Washington, D.C.: December 6, 2013.
Oil and Gas Development: BLM Needs Better Data to Track Permit  Processing Times and Prioritize Inspections. GAO-13-572. Washington,  D.C.: August 23, 2013.
Pipeline Permitting: Interstate and Intrastate Natural Gas Permitting  Processes Include Multiple Steps, and Time Frames Vary. GAO-13-221.  Washington, D.C.: February 15, 2013.
Mineral Resources: Mineral Volume, Value, and Revenue. GAO-13-45R.  Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2012.
Electricity: Significant Changes Are Expected in Coal-Fueled Generation,  but Coal is Likely to Remain a Key Fuel Source. GAO-13-72. Washington,  D.C.: October 29, 2012.
Oil and Gas: Information on Shale Resources, Development, and  Environmental and Public Health Risks. GAO-12-732. Washington, D.C.:  September 5, 2012.
Oil and Gas Management: Interior’s Reorganization Complete, but  Challenges Remain in Implementing New Requirements. GAO-12-423.  Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2012.
EPA Regulations and Electricity: Better Monitoring by Agencies Could  Strengthen Efforts to Address Potential Challenges. GAO-12-635.  Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2012.
Oil and Gas: Interior Has Strengthened Its Oversight of Subsea Well  Containment, but Should Improve Its Documentation.   GAO-12-244. Washington, D.C.: February 29, 2012.
Energy-Water Nexus: Information on the Quantity, Quality, and  Management of Water Produced during Oil and Gas Production.   GAO-12-156. Washington, D.C.: January 9, 2012.
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Actions Needed to Reduce Evolving but  Uncertain Federal Financial Risks. GAO-12-86. Washington, D.C.:  October 24, 2011.
Oil and Gas Bonds: BLM Needs a Comprehensive Strategy to Better  Manage Potential Oil and Gas Well Liability. GAO-11-292. Washington,  D.C.: February 25, 2011.
Energy-Water Nexus: A Better and Coordinated Understanding of Water  Resources Could Help Mitigate the Impacts of Potential Oil Shale  Development. GAO-11-35. Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2010.
Federal Oil and Gas Leases: Opportunities Exist to Capture Vented and  Flared Natural Gas, Which Would Increase Royalty Payments and  Reduce Greenhouse Gases. GAO-11-34. Washington, D.C.: October 29,  2010.
Coal Power Plants: Opportunities Exist for DOE to Provide Better  Information on the Maturity of Key Technologies to Reduce Carbon  Dioxide Emissions. GAO-10-675. Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2010.
Oil and Gas Management: Interior’s Oil and Gas Production Verification  Efforts Do Not Provide Reasonable Assurance of Accurate Measurement  of Production Volumes. GAO-10-313. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2010.
subsections: section_title: Nuclear Energy
paragraphs: Nuclear Power: Analysis of Regional Differences and Improved Access to  Information Could Strengthen NRC Oversight. GAO-13-743. Washington,  D.C.: September 27, 2013.
Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel: Observations on the Key Attributes and  Challenges of Storage and Disposal Options. GAO-13-532T. Washington,  D.C.: April 11, 2013.
Emergency Preparedness: NRC Needs to Better Understand Likely  Public Response to Radiological Incidents at Nuclear Power Plants.  GAO-13-243. Washington, D.C.: March 11, 2013.
Spent Nuclear Fuel: Accumulating Quantities at Commercial Reactors  Present Storage and Other Challenges. GAO-12-797. Washington, D.C.:  August 15, 2012.
Nuclear Regulation: NRC’s Oversight of Nuclear Power Reactors’  Decommissioning Funds Could Be Further Strengthened. GAO-12-258.  Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2012.
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options: DOE Needs to Enhance Planning for  Technology Assessment and Collaboration with Industry and Other  Countries. GAO-12-70. Washington, D.C.: October 17, 2011.
Commercial Nuclear Waste: Effects of a Termination of the Yucca  Mountain Repository Program and Lessons Learned. GAO-11-229.  Washington, D.C.: April 8, 2011.
section_title: Renewable Energy
paragraphs: Wind Energy: Additional Actions Could Help Ensure Effective Use of  Federal Financial Support. GAO-13-136. Washington, D.C.: March 11,  2013.
Renewable Energy: Agencies Have Taken Steps Aimed at Improving the  Permitting Process for Development on Federal Lands. GAO-13-189.  Washington, D.C.: January 18, 2013.
Solar Energy: Federal Initiatives Overlap but Take Measures to Avoid  Duplication. GAO-12-843. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2012.
Renewable Energy Project Financing: Improved Guidance and  Information Sharing Needed for DOD Project-Level Officials.   GAO-12-401. Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2012.
Renewable Energy: Federal Agencies Implement Hundreds of Initiatives.  GAO-12-260. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2012.
Biofuels: Challenges to the Transportation, Sale, and Use of Intermediate  Ethanol Blends. GAO-11-513. Washington, D.C.: June 3, 2011.
Defense Infrastructure: Department of Defense Renewable Energy  Initiatives. GAO-10-681R. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2010.
Defense Infrastructure: DOD Needs to Take Actions to Address  Challenges in Meeting Federal Renewable Energy Goals. GAO-10-104.  Washington, D.C.: December 18, 2009.
section_title: Other Aspects of Energy Production and Consumption
paragraphs: DOE Loan Programs: DOE Should Fully Develop Its Loan Monitoring  Function and Evaluate Its Effectiveness. GAO-14-367. Washington, D.C.:  May 1, 2014.
National Laboratories: DOE Needs to Improve Oversight of Work  Performed for Non-DOE Entities. GAO-14-78. Washington, D.C.: October  25, 2013.
Energy Efficiency: Better Coordination among Federal Programs Needed  to Allocate Testing Resources. GAO-13-135. Washington, D.C.: March  28, 2013.
Department of Energy: Status of Loan Programs. GAO-13-331R.  Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2013.
Tax Expenditures: Background and Evaluation Criteria and Questions.  GAO-13-167SP. Washington, D.C.: November 29, 2012.
Batteries and Energy Storage: Federal Initiatives Supported Similar  Technologies and Goals but Had Key Differences. GAO-12-842.  Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2012.
Home Energy Assistance for Low-Income Occupants of Manufactured  Homes. GAO-12-848R. Washington, D.C.: August 24, 2012.
Energy Conservation and Climate Change: Factors to Consider in the  Design of the Nonbusiness Energy Property Credit. GAO-12-318.  Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2012.
DOE Loan Guarantees: Further Actions Are Needed to Improve Tracking  and Review of Applications. GAO-12-157. Washington, D.C.: March 12,  2012.
Energy: The Department of Energy’s Office of Science Uses a  Multilayered Process for Prioritizing Research. GAO-12-410R.  Washington, D.C.: February 24, 2012.
Department of Energy: Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy  Could Benefit from Information on Applicants’ Prior Funding.   GAO-12-112. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2012.
Green Building: Federal Initiatives for the Nonfederal Sector Could  Benefit from More Interagency Collaboration. GAO-12-79. Washington,  D.C.: November 2, 2011.
Tennessee Valley Authority: Full Consideration of Energy Efficiency and  Better Capital Expenditures Planning Are Needed. GAO-12-107.  Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2011.
Recovery Act: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant  Recipients Face Challenges Meeting Legislative and Program Goals and  Requirements. GAO-11-379. Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2011.
Department of Energy: Advanced Technology Vehicle Loan Program  Implementation Is Under Way, but Enhanced Technical Oversight and  Performance Measures Are Needed. GAO-11-145. Washington, D.C.:  February 28, 2011.
Electricity Grid Modernization: Progress Being Made on Cybersecurity  Guidelines, but Key Challenges Remain to be Addressed. GAO-11-117.  Washington, D.C.: January 12, 2011.
Department of Energy: Further Actions Are Needed to Improve DOE’s  Ability to Evaluate and Implement the Loan Guarantee Program.   GAO-10-627. Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2010.
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Greater Fraud  Prevention Controls Are Needed. GAO-10-621. Washington, D.C.: June  18, 2010.
Federal Energy Management: GSA’s Recovery Act Program Is on Track,  but Opportunities Exist to Improve Transparency, Performance Criteria,  and Risk Management. GAO-10-630. Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2010.
Vehicle Fuel Economy: NHTSA and EPA’s Partnership for Setting Fuel  Economy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards Improved Analysis  and Should Be Maintained. GAO-10-336. Washington, D.C.: February 25,  2010.