Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment*
|
Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment* |
|
|
|
The Department of Energy FY1998 Research and Development Richard E. Rowberg 97-233 SPR CONTENTS: Overview R&D Programs - Descriptions and Budgets
List of Tables
Summary Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act[s] for FY1998, combine to provide $6.92 billion for all DOE R&D programs, approximately the same as the comparable request. Neither authorization or appropriation action provided full construction cost funding. Among the issues that faced Congress during its DOE budget considerations were: the large increases being requested for the solar and renewable energy, and conservation R&D programs; U.S. participation in the European Large Hadron Collider within the high energy physics program; possible U.S. participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project in the fusion energy sciences program; the outlook for the Stockpile Stewardship program and the large increase in construction funds being requested for the National Ignition Facility; and the future of DOE's fossil energy R&D and clean coal technology programs in view of efforts to end federal support of R&D with near term commercial applications. The Department of Energy FY1998 Research and Development Budget and Issues The Department of Energy (DOE) was created in 1977 as part of the nation's attempt to deal with the oil price shocks of the 1970s. The Department was formed from a number of agencies with energy related missions. These agencies included the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA, which itself descended from the former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)), the Federal Power Commission (now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), the Federal Energy Administration, and several programs in the Department of Interior. Because of the nuclear weapons and naval reactor programs absorbed from the AEC, the new DOE gained a sizable defense component. The DOE also became home for 22 field laboratories including the nine multipurpose national labs formed under the AEC. The DOE covers a wide range of activities. It is responsible for the nation's nuclear weapons capability. It has the five federal power marketing administrations, a number of energy regulatory and information functions, uranium enrichment and civilian nuclear waste responsibilities, and the strategic and naval petroleum reserves. Over the last few years, DOE has developed a major environmental component to clean up its weapon's production and related facilities. Finally, DOE has a large research and development (R&D) component in both civilian and defense areas. This report focuses on the R&D programs. DOE has divided its activities into four major business categorie Resource, Science and Technology, National Security, and Environmental Quality. Each has an R&D component, although the R&D funding is concentrated in the first three. Table 1 (on the next page) shows FY1997 R&D funding, the FY1998 request, and the FY1998 appropriation actions by those categories. (See Endnote 1.) All amounts in this and subsequent tables are for budget authority and give current dollars.
For FY1998, DOE requested a policy change for treatment of construction cost requests. Rather than requesting just the funds that will be needed for the project for the fiscal year, incremental costs, it wished to request the entire amount in the fiscal year the project is first approved for construction. This new approach would not change the projected total cost of any of the projects for which it is being used, nor would it alter the expected time to completion. DOE had hoped that this policy change would present a clearer picture of the full obligation of a major project if it is approved. As a consequence of this action for FY1998, the increase in the FY1998 request over the FY1997 appropriation was significantly greater than it would have been under the old policy. The increase requested for DOE R&D programs for FY1998 compared to FY1997 was $968 million or 14.2%. Under the previous method of requesting only incremental funding for construction projects, that the FY1998 request would have been about $6,927.8 million or $196 million, 2.9%, above FY1997. For the entire agency, DOE received appropriations of $16.2 billion in FY1997. The request for FY1998 was $18.2 billion, an increase of about 12.3%. Much of that increase was a result of the change to full construction cost funding. (See Endnote 2.) H.R. 1277 (amended), which would authorize appropriations for the DOE civilian R&D programs for both FY1998 and FY1999. The bill would authorize $3,785.4 million for FY1998, including $50 million from prior year balances, and $3,746.5 million for FYY1999. For FY1998, the authorization would be $233.9 million or 6.2% below the comparable request and 0.4% below the comparable FY1997 appropriation for the civilian R&D programs. Most of the reduction below the request would occur in the energy resources programs with funding for DOE's science and technology programs very close to the request. On June 9, 1997, the House Commerce Committee reported its version of this bill. It would authorize $3,652.4 million for FY1998, including $50 million from prior year balances, and $3,631.2 million for FY1999. The major difference between the two versions is that the House Commerce Committee would provide no funds for the Environment, Safety and Health program, while the House Science Committee would provide $107.9 million. On June 25, 1997, the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 (H.R. 1119). On July 11, 1997, the Senate passed its version of that bill (S. 936). The House version would authorize $2,851.6 billion for DOE defense programs and the defense portion of environmental quality R&D. The Senate bill would authorize $2,937.8 billion for the same programs. Neither bill would allow the full construction cost funding request, which was a significant portion of the DOE defense program request. Compared to the adjusted DOE request that includes only incremental -- FY1998 -- construction costs, the amounts would be 1% above and 2% below that request for the House and Senate respectively. The conference report was filed on October 23, 1997, and the President signed the bill into law on November 18, 1997 (P.L. 105-85). The final authorization approved in the Act is $3,033.8 million, about 4.3% above the adjusted request. On July 16, 1997, the Senate passed the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill, 1998 (S. 1004), which provided $6,154.9 million for FY1998 for all the DOE R&D programs except Fossil Energy, Conservation and Clean Coal Technology. On July 25, 1997, the House passed its version of the bill (H.R. 2203), which provided $5,856.3 million for FY1998 for the same programs. Neither the House or Senate approved the DOE request for full construction cost funding. The Senate's version was the same as the DOE budget request containing only incremental construction costs, while the Houseþs version was 4.8% below that request. On September 30, 1997, the House and Senate each agreed to the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Conference Report and on October 13, 1997, the President signed the bill into law (P.L. 105-62). The final appropriation provides $6,099.5 million, a 0.6% increase over the adjusted request. On July 15, 1997, the House passed the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1998, (H.R. 2107), which provided a total of $799.1 million for FY1998 for Fossil Energy and Conservation R&D, and Clean Coal Technology. On September 18, 1997, the Senate approved its version of the bill, which provided a total of $831.3 million for the same programs. (see Table 1). On October 24 and October 28, 1997, the House and Senate respectively agreed to the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Conference Report, and on November 14, 1997, the President signed the bill into law (P.L. 105-83). The final mark provides $819.1 million for FY1998, a 5.1% decrease from the request. This report will describe the programs within each business category including their research objectives and the activities where significant budget changes, if any, were requested for FY1998. There follows for each program a description of the authorization and appropriations actions for FY1998 including a discussion of major issues about the FY1998 request and how they have been affected by congressional action. The tables provide a summary of the appropriations actions. R&D Programs - Descriptions and Budgets Energy resources R&D includes programs in energy efficiency, fossil energy, clean coal technology, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and fusion energy sciences. The budget information of these five programs is given in Table 2. These programs are the principal DOE R&D efforts devoted to the development of new energy supply and demand technologies.
Energy Conservation. The energy conservation (EC) R&D program is divided into three sectors -- buildings, industry and transportation. (See Endnote 3.) The principal focus of energy conservation research is to reduce each of those sectorþs energy requirements while maintaining or improving services, and enhancing environmental quality. The buildings sector focuses on the building as an integrated system, exploring ways to make the building envelope, equipment and appliances more efficient. The transportation sector directs its R&D at improving efficiency of the current generation of engines, developing new engine technology and alternative transportation fuels. This sector also takes the lead in the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) initiative. (See Endnote 4.) This initiative is a joint effort between the federal government and the nation's three largest automakers to develop an automobile for the next century which will be substantially more efficient without sacrificing features or invoking a price penalty. The industry sector funds R&D on process improvements in basic manufacturing whose goal is increased productivity and energy efficiency. It also focuses on developing technology to reduce or re-cycle process waste streams, and on advanced, on- site energy generating technology. Finally, this program has responsibility for application of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies to public sector facilities. For FY1998, DOE's energy conservation R&D request was 23.0% more than the FY1997 appropriation. Each of the sectors would have received similar increases. About one-half or the increase would have gone to two programs, the PNGV and the energy conservation portion of the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). The latter is designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases -- largely carbon dioxide. The energy conservation portion of the PNGV program would have gained an additional $18.3 million to total $122.3 million, and the EC portion of the CCAP program would gain $39.8 million to total $65 million. All of the sectors would have received significant increases including the Federal Energy Management Program. The House Science Committee bill, H.R. 1277, would authorize $416.9 million for FY1998, including $20 million from prior year balances, and $439.4 million for FY1999. The FY1998 authorization would be $44.6 million or 10.7% below the request and 7.9% above the FY1997 comparable appropriation. (See Endnote 5.) While each of the sectors would be funded below the request level, the buildings sector would take the largest reduction. Finally, the bill would establish an Energy Efficiency Science initiative funded at $50 million for FY1998. Projects would be selected on a competitive, peer reviewed basis. The House Commerce Committee version would authorize $414.2 million for FY1998, including $20 million from prior year balances, and $436.7 million for FY1999. As with the House Science Committee version, the largest reductions from the request and the FY1997 appropriation would occur in the buildings sector. The House Commerce Committee version would also authorize the establishment of a $50 million Energy Efficiency Science initiative for FY1998. The House appropriated $487.0 million for Energy Conservation R&D for FY1998. (See Endnote 6.) This amount is 5.7% below the DOE request and 16% above the FY1997 appropriation. Most of the increase over FY1997, however, was a result of a transfer of $45 million for advanced turbine research from the Fossil Energy R&D program to the Energy Conservationþs Industry Sector. Nearly all of the remaining increase over FY1997 was in two areas: advanced heavy vehicle technology and industrial turbine research. The DOE requests for increases for the CACP and the PNGV were not granted in the House action. The Senate appropriated $467.3 million for Energy Conservation R&D for FY1998. This amount is 9.5% below the request, but 11.3% above the FY1997 level. All of the activities within the three sectors -- buildings, industry, and transportation -- would receive increases over FY1997. The recommendations were below the requests for all of these sectors, however, with buildings technology taking the largest reduction. The Senate did not transfer any funds for advanced turbine research from Fossil Energy R&D. In the final appropriation, the Congress approved an amount 11.6% below the request. The Congress did not approve the House action on advanced turbine research, so the final mark for Conservation is about mid-way between the Senate and House passed bills with the advanced turbine research removed. Of the three sectors, the buildings technology sector are receiving the largest reduction from the request and industry the smallest. All three sectors are receiving an increase over FY1997, with buildings technology being the smallest and industry the largest. Fossil Energy R&D and Clean Coal Technology. Fossil energy R&D is directed at high-efficiency coal burning technology, the development of advanced technologies for exploration and development of oil and natural gas, and advanced technologies for burning fossil fuels. Oil and natural gas R&D concentrate on enhanced recovery techniques, and the fuel cell is the primary target of advanced fossil fuel combustion R&D. Coal R&D also includes the Clean Coal Technology (CCT) program, a separate series of demonstration projects in pursuit of cleaner and more efficient use of coal, which receive at least 50% of their support from the private sector. All federal funds for CCT were appropriated in previous years. The FY1998 request was 5% less than the FY1997 appropriation. Reductions would have occurred in all coal activities, and in natural gas and fuel cell research. An increase was requested for oil technology. The largest reduction would have been the elimination of $15.3 million for gas turbine research added by Congress. For the clean coal technology program, DOE requested that $153 million of previously appropriated funds be rescinded and $133 million deferred. These funds are available because of canceled or restructured projects. H.R. 1277 would authorize $348.8 million for FY1998 and $348.2 million for FY1999. The FY1998 authorization would be $2.1 million or 0.7% above the request and 4.6% below the FY1997 appropriation. The coal subprogram would receive about $5 million more than the request, although the bill would prohibit expenditure of monies for a project on coal technology with the Peoples Republic of China. The oil and gas programs would receive less than requested although no particular projects appear to be the target of major reductions. The House Commerce Committee version would authorize $335.9 million for FY1998 and $335.2 million for FY1999. The difference between the two versions is that the Commerce Committee version would not provide any funds for Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration. Both versions of the bill would establish a fossil energy science initiative funded at $25 million for FY1998. Projects would be selected on a competitive, peer reviewed basis. The House appropriated $312.2 million for FY1998, which was 14.4% below the FY1997 appropriation and 9.9% below the DOE request for FY1998. The transfer of $45 million for advanced turbine research to Energy Conservation R&D, however, accounted for most of the decline from FY1997. According to the House bill, the transfer was undertaken to consolidate all DOE turbine technology research in one place. Aside from the transfer, most of the activities within the program received an appropriation close to their request. One exception was the advanced pulverized coal-fired powerplant activity, for which the House approved a $10 million increase over its request of $5.5 million. The House also agreed to a rescission of $100 million for the Clean Coal Technology Program. The Senate appropriated $364 million for FY1998, an increase of 5.1% above the request and almost identical to the FY1997 amount. The Senate did not transfer of advanced turbine research, but provided $13.6 million more than requested for that research. Other increases approved by the Senate went to the advanced pulverized coal-fired powerplant activity and energy technology center program direction. Most other activities received their requests. The Senate also approved a rescission of $101 million for the Clean Coal Technology Program. The final appropriation provides a 4.6% increase over the request, although a small, 0.4% decrease from FY1997. The transfer of advanced turbine research was not agreed to by the House-Senate conference. Senate action increasing such research by $13.6 million, however, was adopted in the law. The Congress also approved a rescission of $101 million for Clean Coal Technology compared to an amount of $153 million requested by DOE. The deferral of $133 million for the program requested by DOE was not approved. Nuclear Energy R&D. The DOE nuclear energy R&D program is undergoing a major change in direction. Up to this year, its principal activity has been improvement of the light water reactor (LWR). (See Endnote 7.) The program has been attempting to develop procedures for a standardized LWR, and the technology base for passively safe and advanced LWRs. In addition, the program carries out R&D on radioisotope power for space systems, radioisotope production for a variety of commercial and medical uses, nuclear safety and methods for treating spent nuclear fuel. For FY1998, the nuclear energy programs will assume responsibility for DOE uranium programs. This activity is not R&D, however, and is not included in table 2. For FY1998 DOE asked for 23.7% more than was appropriated for FY1997. DOE has completed its research on the LWR and did not ask for any funds in this area for FY1998. It shifted the program's focus to technical issues about the nation's existing nuclear power plants. DOE asked for $39.8 million for this effort which it calls nuclear energy security. In addition, DOE asked for an increase in radioisotope research in support of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's planetary missions. A major portion of FY1998 request was to go for termination of the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II). Finally, DOE wanted to establish an outside review panel to recommend strategic changes for the program. H.R. 1277 would authorize $177.6 million for FY1998 and $152.9 million for FY1999. The FY1998 authorization would be $55.2 million or 23.7% below the request and 12.4% below the FY1997 appropriation. The primary targets of the reduction are the Nuclear Energy Security (NES) initiative and advanced light water reactor research. Neither would receive any funds under this bill. The Committee stated that DOE had not provided sufficient information to evaluate the NES program and asked DOE to provide more detailed information. It also suggested that a revision of the program's scope and goals might be desirable. In addition, there would be a small reduction in termination costs, and the full construction cost funding request would be authorized in FY1999. The Senate appropriation was 25.7% below the request. Most of the reduction resulted from the Senateþs unwillingness to fund the nuclear security initiative. It argued that technical issues that constrained continued use of nuclear power in the United States should be dealt with by the electric utilities and not DOE. The appropriation also made small reductions in advanced radioisotope power systems, university reactor fuel assistance and termination costs for the advanced light water reactor program. The appropriation was 14.7% below FY1997 primarily because funding for light water reactor(LWR) R&D is ending. The House appropriations was 27.7% below the request.. As with the Senate mark, the major component of the reduction was the absence of any funding for the DOEþs nuclear security initiative. In addition, the House provided an additional $8 million for electrometallurgical treatment R&D, which DOE put in defense programs. The House funded the isotope support program at the FY1997 level, about $10 million below the request. The appropriation was also 17% below FY1997. The final appropriation is 28.2% below the request. Most of that was a result of the nuclear security initiative not being funded. The Congress specified $33 million for electrometallurgical research within funding for the EBR-II, which is about $8 million above the request. An additional $12 million is included under defense programs (see below). The FY1998 amount is 11.9% below FY1997 as funding for LWR R&D ends. Solar and Renewable Energy R&D. The solar and renewable energy R&D program focuses on a wide range of energy supply technologies. (See Endnote 8.) Major efforts are directed toward solar energy, primarily photovoltaic (PV) technology, solar thermal central power plants and fuel production from biomass. The PV activity is aimed at reducing production costs and improving conversion efficiency. The program also is funding R&D on solar heating and cooling for buildings, improving the cost performance of wind machines, exploitation of geothermal resources, and the development of hydrogen as an energy carrier. The program includes research on potential health effects of electromagnetic field effects, electric energy storage technologies, and application of high temperature superconductivity. An important function of this program is to help the private sector place promising new renewable energy technologies in the commercial market. For FY1998, DOE asked for a 27.7% increase over the FY1997 appropriation. Photovoltaics, biofuels, wind and electric energy systems and storage are designated for the largest increases. Much of the PV increase would have gone for cost- shared procurement of PV electric power systems with electric utilities. A major portion of the increase for biofuels was to go toward construction of modular biopower systems for rural applications. The increase for electric energy systems was primarily for development of high temperature superconductivity products. Most of the wind energy research was to support turbine research activities. H.R. 1277 would authorize $275.0 million for FY1998, including $15 million from prior year balances, and $270.3 million for FY1999. In addition, P.L. 104-261, The Hydrogen Research Act of 1996, authorizes $25 million for hydrogen research for FY1998 and $30 million for FY1999. The total Solar and Renewable Resource Technology FY1998 authorization would be $300.0 million which is $44.7 million or 13.0% below the request and 11.2% above the FY1997 appropriations. The largest share of the reductions compared to the request would take place in the biofuels energy systems and wind energy systems subprograms, which would receive $61.1 million below the request. Nearly all of the other subprograms, however, would also be reduced from the request. Finally, the bill would establish a solar and renewable energy science initiative funded at $50 million for FY1998. Projects would be selected on a competitive, peer review basis. It is the Committee's view that more emphasis should be placed on basic and applied research. The FY1998 Senate appropriation was 12.6% below the request. Reductions from the request were spread among the various activities, although the Senate would increase hydrogen research by $4 million. The appropriation was 13.1% above FY1997. Increases were concentrated in photovoltaic energy systems, biomass transportation, wind energy, and high temperature superconducting R&D. The House appropriation consisted of two parts. First, it provided $285 million for the activities within the Solar and Renewable Energy Program. This was 17.3% below the request and 5.6% above the FY1997 appropriation. Most of the reductions below the request would have occurred in photovoltaic, wind, and biomass/biofuels energy systems. In addition, the House noted that within the DOE Office of Energy Research, $44.3 million of the House appropriation were directed toward basic research in renewable energy, primarily biomass/biofuels energy systems. The House directed DOE to prepare a comprehensive R&D plan for FY1999 that included both sources of renewable energy research support. The House asserted that a strong fundamental research effort for renewable energy was important in order to justify a significant government role. The House noted that the increase over FY1997 indicated the importance Congress put on developing alternative energy resources. In the final appropriation, the Congress followed the House version by providing funds directly to the core Solar and Renewable Energy Program and identifying within the Program account, additional funding from the Office of Energy Research that is to be used for basic research in this area. For the former, the appropriations is 12.45 below the request. Reductions were concentrated within the solar energy sector -- photovoltaic, wind and biofuels energy systems. For the latter, the Congress identified $44.3 million for basic research in renewable energy topics, which is the amount requested. The Congress took this action in order to increase the emphasis on research in the Program. It also directed DOE to submit its FY1999 request by displaying both sources of solar and renewable energy R&D in one table as done in the appropriations conference report. (See Endnote 9.) The appropriation for the core Program is 5.8% above the FY1997 amount. Most of the increase is for photovoltaic energy systems and high-temperature superconductivity research. Fusion Energy Science. The fusion energy science (FES) program was formerly called the Magnetic Fusion Energy program. (See Endnote 10.) The FES program will concentrate on basic research in plasma and fusion science and technology to expand the knowledge base needed to develop fusion based power reactors and to enhance the application of plasma science in industry. Prior to this year, the program's major goal was development of a demonstration electric power reactor by 2025. The shift in focus is a result of a congressional mandate accompanying a large budget reduction in FY1996. The FES program also participates in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, the major international effort to control the fusion reaction for electric power production. The FY1998 request was 3.2% less than the FY1997 appropriation. A major reduction resulted from completion of research on the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. Increased funding was requested for operation of the DIII-D tokamak and for design and fabrication of the National Spherical Experimental Torus. The latter is part of the program's alternate concept effort. For the ITER project, DOE requested $55 million, the FY1997 level. H.R. 1277 would authorize $240 million for FY1998 and again for FY1999. The FY1998 authorization would be $15 million or 6.7% above the request and 3.3% above the FY1997 appropriation. Report language accompanying the bill (H.R.105-67) would direct the additional funds to increase support for research on alternate concepts, the two large tokamaks remaining in the program -- DIII-D and the Alcator MOD-C, and basic fusion science and technology. In addition, the Committee directs DOE to clarify the role of ITER in the program's future plans (see below). The Senate appropriated $240 million for FES for FY1998, an increase of 6.7% over the request and 3.3% above the FY1997 appropriation. The Senate repeated its concurrence with the way DOE has responded to congressional direction to restructure the program. It stated that the FY1998 appropriation was to meet the Senateþs commitment to provide the program with level funding now that the restructuring is complete. There was no reference to ITER funding. The House appropriations met the DOE request and was 3.2% below the FY1997 amount. The House noted that with the shutdown of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor, the program would have about $40 million for new activities in FY1998. The House also expressed its satisfaction with the way DOE restructured its program, and asserted that the appropriations would permit a balanced program to continue in FY1998. Full funding for ITER was provided, although the House made clear that no obligation existed for participation in any ITER activity beyond FY1998. The House noted the considerable uncertainty about ITERþs future. The final FY1998 appropriation is $232 million and includes $2 million now funded in the Nuclear Energy Program. Accounting for that shift, it is 2.2% above the request and the FY1997 amount. The appropriation provides about $55 million for ITER although no mention was made of the project in the Conference Report. The future of project, however, is still uncertain, and DOE is taking steps to adjust the FES program for the FY1999 budget submission to account for that uncertainty. The DOE science programs are a broad array of basic research activities directed at the scientific basis for development of advanced energy technologies and the understanding of environmental effects of energy production. Table 3 shows funding information for these programs. In fact, these programs serve a much broader mission. Some support the most fundamental science funded by the federal government with applications at best decades away. Others perform research on scientific areas with potential applications across the entire spectrum of economic activity. In addition, these programs are the principal source of support for the non-defense R&D carried out at DOE's nine multi-purpose national labs. (See Endnote 11.) Administratively, these programs fall within the Office of Energy Research.
High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics. The High Energy Physics (HEP) and Nuclear Physics (NP) Programs, until this fiscal year, were grouped together under what was called the General Science and Research Program. The HEP supports research on experimental and theoretical studies of the fundamental structure of matter and energy. It operates several large accelerators, including the tevatron at Fermilab and the linear accelerator at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). A major initiative of the HEP program is participation in the large hadron collider (LHC) project at the Center for European Nuclear Research (CERN) in Europe. An agreement between DOE and CERN is anticipated soon. The Nuclear Physics Program (NP) supports research into the structure of the nucleus of the atom and the forces holding the nucleus together. Large research facilities within this program include the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Laboratory in Newport News, VA, now in operation, and the relativistic heavy ion collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Lab, currently under construction. The FY1998 request for HEP was 0.7% more than the FY1997 appropriation and for NP it was 5.2% above the FY1997 amount. Most of the increase for the latter was a result of the move to full construction cost funding where an additional $16 million was requested to complete funding for RHIC which is scheduled for completion in FY1999. DOE also requested $35 million, and increase of $20 million from FY1997, in the HEP Program to meet this nation's commitment to the LHC project, for the coming year, once the agreement is concluded. (See Endnote 12.) This increase along with others for the general HEP program were to be offset by reductions in construction costs for the Fermilab main injector and the B- factory at SLAC. DOE also requested $10.2 million for program direction for the two programs. The entire United States portion of the LHC project is projected to cost $450 million from now until 2004 when it is completed. To ensure that funds will be forthcoming, DOE requested $394 million in advance appropriations to cover the years FY1999 to FY2004. These funds did not show up in the HEP Program budget request for FY1998. For the two programs combined, H.R. 1277 would authorize $992.0 million for FY1998, including $15 million of prior year balances, and $941.0 million for FY1999. The FY1998 authorization would be $25.7 million or 2.5% below the request and 0.9% below the FY1997 appropriation. All of the full construction cost funding request would be funded. None of the advance appropriation for the LHC, however, would be authorized by this bill. In addition, the bill would restrict expenditure of the $35 million requested for the LHC until DOE reports to the Committee about the impact of LHC funding on the entire high energy physics program. The Committee expressed concern about the agreement with CERN and argued that it may not be in the best interest of the U.S. HEP program. Also, the Committee expressed concern that DOE may not have committed sufficient funds to operate and utilize, adequately, its HEP facilities. The Senate appropriation, which provided all but the request of $16.6 million for full construction funding, was 0.5% above the FY1997 appropriation for the two programs combined. The Senate expressed its þstrong endorsementþ of U.S. participation in the LHC project. It also urged DOE to provide an additional $3 million from its FY1998 appropriation to the Thomas Jefferson National Laboratory to fund eight more weeks of operation. The House appropriation provided an additional $5 million above the request to the HEP Program, an increase of 0.7%. It did not grant the request for full construction cost funding, but did provide an additional $5 million to the rest of the NP Program, an increase of 1.6%. The House approved the full request for participation in the LHC but did not grant the request for advance appropriation for the project. The House also directed that before any funds could be used on the LHC project, DOE and the National Science Foundation were to provide the House Appropriations Committee with a report giving details and assurances about the arrangement between DOE and CERN, and an assessment of the potential effect of LHC participation on the domestic HEP program. While the House was encouraged by the recent changes made in the CERN-DOE agreement, it stated that it would carefully monitor the arrangement. The final appropriation followed the House mark giving a slight increase for each of the two programs over the request and the FY1997 amount. In addition, about $9.4 million is being provided for program direction of the two programs. The Congress moved all program direction funds for Science Programs into one line. Basic Energy Sciences.. The basic energy sciences (BES) program is the most diverse research program within DOE. Its stated goals are to carry out scientific research related to energy technology development, and to maintain and develop major research facilities for national use. The research in BES consists of a wide range of basic research activities in materials, chemistry, engineering, earth sciences, and energy biosciences. In addition to energy technologies, this BES research has potential applications in a wide variety of industrial areas. The major user facilities operated by BES at the DOE labs are used extensively by industry, universities and government on a cost shared basis. Continuation of the user facility initiative, first approved last year, is being requested for FY1997. The FY1998 request for the basic energy sciences program was 3.4% more than the FY1997 appropriation. For FY1998, DOE requested restoration of funding of the user facilities to $256 million (38.1% of the entire BES budget) to the FY1996 level. In addition, a significant increase was requested for continued research and design of the National Spallation Neutron Source which is to replace the Advanced Neutron Source project, canceled in FY1996. H.R. 1277 would authorize $666.8 million for FY1998 and $682.9 million for FY1999. The bill would authorize the FY1998 full construction cost funding request of $4 million in FY1999. The FY1998 authorization would be 0.2% below the comparable request and 2.6% above the comparable FY1997 appropriation. In appropriations action, the Senate approved funding for the entire FY1998 request minus $4 million that DOE had requested for full construction cost funding. The approved amount was 2.8% above the FY1997 amount. The House also appropriated the full request without the full construction cost fund. The House expressed its commitment to basic research support, and the availability of the DOE research facilities. Within this program, the House included $23 million for the National Spallation Neutron Source (NSPS). The House asked DOE to provide a funding profile for the project including identification of programs that would be reduced to pay for the NSNS in the outyears. The final appropriation funds the BES program at its request minus the full construction funding, an increase of 2.8% above FY1997. This appropriation includes funds for the NSPS. It is likely that DOE will request substantially more funds for this project in the FY1999, which will put added budget pressure on the rest of DOEþs civilian research programs. Computational and Technology Research. In FY1997, DOE established a new program, computational and technology (CT) research, which assumes the mathematics and computer science, and advanced energy projects formerly housed in BES. The computational and technology research program carries out research on advanced computer applications and provides access to high performance computers for researchers in the DOE laboratories. This program also is responsible for the DOE portion of the next generation internet (NGI) initiative. Finally, DOE technology transfer activities are centered in this program. The FY1998 request for CT was 14.6% more than the FY1997 appropriation. Funding for the NGI initiative would have received the largest increase. The purpose of the initiative is to increase by 100 to 1000 times, the speed of the computer networks connecting the nation's universities and DOE laboratories, and accelerate development of advanced network technologies. H.R. 1277 would authorize $140.9 million for FY1998 and $145.1 million for FY1999. The FY1998 authorization would be $35 million or 19.9% below the request and 8.2% below the FY1997 appropriation. The bill would prohibit any funding for the NGI, for which DOE has requested $35 million for FY1998, until the Committee has the opportunity to review the entire program. The bill would allow NGI activities already underway to continue. The Committee intends to hold hearings on the NGI in the near future and plans to authorize the entire program. The Senate appropriated the entire request for the CT program except for $25 million of the $35 million requested for the NGI. The Senate expressed its belief that commercial technology development will be sufficient to meet the DOE needs for greater internet capability, and that DOE funding of such development is not necessary. The Committee did agree that such expanded capability was needed. The appropriation was 1.7% below the FY1997 level. Funds for the entire NGI request, $35 million, were not included in the House appropriations. The House noted the large amount of work being carried out in the private sector on related technology. In addition, the House stated that it was not necessary to start a new program to upgrade the improve Internet capabilities since such work was already underway in the program. The final appropriation accepted the Senate mark, which is 14.2% below the request and 1.7% below the FY1997 amount. As a result, DOE received $10 million for participation in the Next Generation Internet project for FY1998. (See Endnote 13.) Biological and Environmental Research.. The biological and environmental research (BER) program is focused on basic research in the biomedical and environmental sciences for the purposes of understanding potential long-term health and environmental effects of energy production and use. Included within BER are research on global climate change, (See Endnote 14.) radionuclide medicine and DOE's portion of the human genome project. This program also helps operate the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) for bio remediation research. The FY1998 request was 3.2% less than FY1997 appropriation. The reduction was made possible primarily because of completion of the EMSL. Funds for operation of the lab were being requested, however, along with increases in the human genome project. The request did not continue funds for research mandated by Congress at two university health science schools. H.R. 1277 would authorize $367.5 million for FY1998 and $378.6 million for FY1999. The FY1998 authorization would be $9.1 million or 2.5% below the request and 5.6% below the FY1997 appropriation. The bill would authorize $1 million for the United States-Mexico Foundation for Science for research on biosciences and the environment. The Senate appropriated the full DOE request, which was 3.2% below the FY1997 appropriation. The amount includes $9.7 million for the National Institute for Global Environmental Change. The House appropriated a $5 million increase over the request, which was 1.9% below the FY1997 amount. As noted by the House Appropriations Committee, however, that level included a large construction project that is now completed, so the appropriations provided a substantial increase in operating funds for the program. The House-approved amount includes $8.2 million for the National Institute for Global Environmental Change. The final appropriation exceeds the request by $30 million or 8%. This increase, which raised the final amount above that approved by the House and Senate individually, is a result of $35 million added to the bill for specific projects as detailed in the Conference Report. (See Endnote 15.) The final appropriation also includes the full amount for the National Institute for Global Environmental Change. Other. In the other category are support and auxiliary programs including laboratory facility and equipment support, program direction and energy research analysis. DOE has lumped the operations budget -- salaries and other administrative costs -- for all of the programs within the Office of Energy Research except those under General Science and Research (High Energy and Nuclear Physics Programs) and Fusion Energy into one program direction budget line. The FY1998 request was 3.5% less than the FY1997 appropriation. The only significant change was the transfer of funding for the laboratory facility support to full construction funding. A slight reduction in spending for this support was requested for FY1998 compared to FY1997 funding. H.R. 1277 would authorize $51.9 million for FY1998 and $48.0 million for FY1999. The full construction cost funding request of $19.0 million for FY1998 would be deferred to FY1999. The FY1998 authorization would be $1.5 million or 3% below the comparable request and 3.7% below the comparable FY1997 appropriation. The bill would reduce program management for DOE energy research programs by $1.5 million. The appropriation by the Senate was 14.0% below the request but 10.1% above the FY1997 appropriation. The Senate did not fund the full construction cost funding request, but provided $10 million for university and science education, which DOE did not request. The appropriation also provided $2.1 million less in program direction funds than requested. The Senate version of the appropriations bill also consolidated science programs of DOE into one account called Science. These programs include high energy and nuclear physics, basic energy science, biological and environmental research, computational and technology research and the other category. Fusion energy science is placed in its energy resources account. The Senate also expressed its concern that DOE has not requested enough for the science account to make full use of its research facilities. It urged DOE to prepare an FY1999 budget making better use of these facilities þincluding support for laboratory completion and operating costs and for university researchers conducting experiments at these facilities. The House appropriations was 27.2% below the request and 6.8% below last year's appropriation. The absence of any appropriation for the full construction cost funding request accounts for most of the decrease from the request. In addition, the House approved a reduction of 7.8% in Office of Energy Research program direction funds to further the goals of downsizing the federal workforce. The House also directed a consolidation of science programs, establishing a new Science account containing the same programs as in the Senate action. The House stated its purposes in doing so were to þmake a clear distinction betweenþ basic research programs and those directed toward energy supply and demand, and to place all basic research in the Office of Energy Research. In the final appropriation, these activities are receiving $60.4 million, a reduction of 26.9% from the request and 6.4% below FY1997. Full construction cost funding for the multiprogram energy laboratories was not granted. The Congress also consolidated all program direction funds, including those for HEP and NP, in one account, funded at a level 7.8% below the request. National Security and Environmental Management Although separate sectors within the DOE budget, these two activities are closely related since the prime focus of environmental management is cleanup of the DOE weapons facilities. (See Endnote 16.) The major activity is weapons R&D which supports the nation's efforts to manage the nuclear weapons stockpile in the absence of testing. (See Endnote 17.) Other research is funded to support nuclear weapon nonproliferation, to improve naval ship propulsion reactors, to develop new science and technology for environmental restoration, and to support DOE's environmental, health and safety activities. Table 4 shows the R&D funding for these programs. Table 4. National Security and Environmental Management
Stockpile Stewardship. The goal of the stockpile stewardship program is to provide the scientific understanding and the experimental facilities needed to maintain the safety, reliability and performance of the existing stockpile as it undergoes changes due to aging and component replacement. Research includes development of computational and experimental facilities to develop greater understanding of weapon processes, and to simulate these processes. The DOE inertial confinement fusion (ICF) program falls within weapons R&D. A major item within the stockpile stewardship and ICF programs is the National Ignition Facility (NIF) which has just completed title I engineering design prior to construction. The NIF is to be a large, laser fusion facility which is expected to be able to simulate the portions of the ignition process of thermonuclear weapons on a very small scale. Other major activities with the stockpile stewardship program are construction of the dual axis radiographic hydrodynamic test facility to test for the safety of nuclear weapons, and the accelerated strategic computing initiative (ASCI) to develop the supercomputer technology needed for weapon simulations. Finally, the defense programþs technology transfer activities are in the stockpile stewardship program. The FY1998 request was 50.4% more than the FY1996 appropriation. The core stockpile stewardship program is asking for a small increase to expand efforts to develop simulation codes and new software to take advantage of the advances in computer speed achieved last year. The ICF program asked for a decrease because of completion of activities associated with the NIF project. The major increase in the overall program request was due to the transfer of construction funding for NIF and other stockpile stewardship projects to full construction funding. The total NIF request for FY1998 was $876.4 million, of which $752 million resulted from the full construction funding request. The projected cost of the project itself has increased by about $100 million since completion of title I design. The Senate authorized $1,726.9 million and the House authorized $1,733.4 million for Stockpile Stewardship in their respective versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998. Each authorized $197.8 million for construction of the NIF, choosing, without comment, not to grant DOE's full cost funding request for that project. That figure was arrived at from DOE's FY1997 request, which provided out-year construction cost estimates for the project. The core Stockpile Stewardship Program were authorized at the DOE request level by the House, and $14 million below the request by the Senate. All of the Senate's reduction occurred in the ASCI project. The House urged DOE not to make any commitments for the NIF that could not be canceled until all judicial proceedings against the Department about the project were completed. The Senate expressed its concern that DOE was relying too heavily on "unproven science-based stockpile stewardship" while putting inadequate resources into modernizing the "proven, hands-on production engineering and surveillance approaches...". The Senate directed DOE to "seek a reasonable balance" between the two approaches. In the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998, a funding level of $1,867.2 million is authorized. This amount is above both the House and Senate marks, and 7.3% above the comparable request (without full construction cost funding). It is the same as the final appropriation for the Stockpile Stewardship Program (see below). In appropriations action, the Senate did not grant DOE's request for full construction cost funding. The appropriation, therefore, was 22.8% below the request, although it 10.7% above the request without full construction cost funding (adjusted request). The appropriation was also 16.2% above the FY1997 amount. The Senate added $175 million to the core program request including $50 million core research and advanced technology, $25 million for ASCI, $30 million for development of a source of radiation hardened microelectronics, and $50 million to accelerate maintenance and refurbishment at the weapons labs and the Nevada test site. The Senate expressed concern that DOE is not planning for sufficient resources to "address the critical needs of an aging stockpile." For FY1998, $197.8 million was provided for construction of the NIF. The House appropriation, which also did not grant the full construction cost funding, was 30.5% below the actual request, 0.4% below the adjusted request, but 4.6% above the FY1997 amount. The appropriation matched the core program request, and would provide $197.8 million for FY1998 construction of NIF. The House urged DOE to make extensive use of university research in the ASCI program. The final appropriation is 33.5% below the request but 7.3% above the adjusted request. The additional funds are directed at the core stockpile stewardship program for those items identified in the Senate version of the bill The final appropriation provides $110 million above the request for those items compared to the Senateþs increase of $155 million. In addition, the Congress is providing an increase of $20 million over the request to maintain the readiness of the Nevada Test Site. The appropriation is 12.7% above the FY1997 amount. Nonproliferation and Verification R&D. Nonproliferation and verification R&D focuses on methods for detection of production and testing of nuclear weapons, and for dismantlement of nuclear warheads. Remote sensing and regional monitoring are the principal areas of investigation. This research supports arms control treaty monitoring, provides technology for collection of intelligence of potential proliferation, and develops technologies for detecting diversion of weapons of mass destruction. The FY1998 request was 0.9% less than the FY1997 appropriation. Small increases were requested for weapons nonproliferation, and nuclear terrorism. These were offset by small decreases for proliferation and materials detection R&D. In defense authorization action, the House authorized $190 million for this program in its version, and the Senate, $210 million. There were no comments about the program accompanying either bill. The enacted National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998 authorizes the Senate amount which is the appropriations level. In appropriations action, the Senate approved the requested amount, which is nearly the same as the FY1997 appropriation. It also expressed its strong support of these activities. The House appropriations was 9.5% below the request and 10% below the FY1998 appropriation. The House stated that funding constraints necessitated the decrease, which it directed should be in contract funds. The final appropriation adopts the Senate version, providing the requested amount. The Conference Report did not comment on this item. Naval Reactor R&D. Naval reactor R&D is directed at development and test of advanced reactor systems and components for submarines, and support of the existing fleet reactors. The program examines ways to bring new technology into existing reactor systems, test components and materials in existing systems, and develop new reactors which are less costly and more reliable. The program has responsibility for all 115 operating reactors in the fleet. The FY1998 request was 5.0% less than the FY1997 appropriation. The reduction was primarily a result of greatly reduced activity at the prototype reactor plant which has been shutdown. Only actions to maintain these facilities in a safe condition will be carried out. A small increase was being requested for materials testing because of the longer service periods of the existing reactor fleet. For the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998, the House authorized $678.5 million for Naval Reactors R&D and the Senate authorized $683.0 million. The increases were provided to expedite the shutdown activities at the prototype reactor plants. The Senate expressed concern that DOE continues to underestimate the resources needed for the Naval Reactors program and encouraged DOE to request adequate amounts in the future. The enacted version authorizes $670.5 million, an increase of 3.5% over the request. A request of $7.8 million for full construction cost funding was not authorized. In the Conference Report, the Congress expressed its concern about the need to expedite prototype reactor shutdown activities and about DOE's estimation of Program resource requirements. In appropriations action, the Senate increased funding for Naval Reactors R&D by 2% over the request, but 3.1% below the FY1997 appropriation. The Senate provided an additional $20 million for the prototype shutdown program. The House appropriated 4% above the request but 1.2% below the FY1997 amount. The additional funds were to accelerate the prototype shutdown program, and avoid delay of environmental cleanup efforts that must be completed by 2002. The final appropriation provides an increase of 3.5% over the request, although it is 1.7% below the FY1997 amount. The Congress is providing an additional $30 million above the request for shutdown and cleanup activities. Nuclear Technology R&D. Nuclear technology R&D is directed at R&D on new technologies that can assist DOE in high-priority activities. It currently supports research into electrometallurgical treatment of spent fuel in order to facilitate disposition of the products in waste repositories. The principal target of this research is spent fuel from the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) facility. The FY1998 request was 20% more than the FY1997 appropriation. This program was located in the civilian Nuclear Energy Program in FY1997 and was transferred to Defense Programs for the FY1998 request. The FY1998 plans are to continue experiments on the EBR-II and other types of spent fuel assemblies, characterize performance, and develop a conceptual design of a pilot scale demonstration. For the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998, the House authorized $12 million and stated that it would not fund this program under the defense authorization bill in the future, but rather it should be completely within the civilian nuclear energy program. The Senate authorized the full request of $25 million and had no comment about the program or its location. In the enacted version, $12 million is authorized for this program. Nothing is stated in the Conference Report about who should have administrative responsibility of this program. In appropriations action, the Senate funded the full request for this program without comment. The House approved a 52% reduction. As noted above, however, it appropriated $8 million in the civilian Nuclear Energy program, yielding a total of $20 million. The House also directed DOE to request all of the funds for this program under Energy Resources for FY1999. The final appropriation provides $12 million for this program. As noted above, the Congress also is providing $33 million for related electrometallurgical activities under the civilian nuclear energy budget. Environmental Quality R&D. Environmental quality research consists of technology development and environmental science within Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, and environment, health and safety within Energy Supply Research and Development. The first two programs are charged with expanding the scientific understanding of the character and risks associated with the weapons manufacturing sites, and new technologies for carrying out restoration and management in a safer, less costly manner. The third program supports health studies, technical assistance, compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, and administrative support to the several DOE civilian R&D programs. The FY1998 request for these programs was 13.5% less than the FY1997 appropriations. Reductions resulted from completion of waste treatment technology development, a decrease in crosscutting program activities and technology systems applications, fewer new starts in environmental science, and small decreases in several health and safety programs. A major increase was requested for deployment of new restoration and management technologies. H.R. 1277 would provide $107.9 million for environment, health and safety for FY1998 and $100.2 million for FY1999. The FY1998 authorization would be $1 million or 0.9% below the request and 2.2% below the FY1997 appropriation. For the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998, the House authorized $237.9 million for the Technology Development and Environmental Science Programs within the DOE Defense Program while the Senate authorized $292.9 million for these programs. The House reduced the Technology Development program by $75 million while the Senate authorization reduced it by $5 million. The House argued that the technology deployment initiative office requested by DOE was not a program to deploy technology innovations and would not fund its creation. The Senate, on the other hand, expressed its support for this move. The enacted version authorizes $275 million for these two programs -- $220 million for Technology Development and $55 million for Environmental Science. In the Conference Report, the Congress expressed concern about DOE's record of deploying clean-up and waste management technologies developed under this program, and directed higher-level attention within DOE to facilitate such action. In appropriations action, the Senate approved $87.8 million for Environment, Safety and Health (EHS) and a total of $282.9 for the Technology Development and Environmental Sciences Programs. The former is 19.4% below the request and the latter is 8.1% below the request. Most of the reduction for EHS is a result of the Senateþs shift of $18.7 million requested for health studies to Defense programs. The Senate made a $25 million reduction in the Technology Development program because of concerns it has with DOEþs efforts to development new technology for cleanup. It repeated its belief that advanced technology is critical to the eventual success of the cleanup. The House appropriated $74.5 million for EHS and $237.9 million for the Technology Development and Environmental Sciences Programs. The former was 31.3% below the request while the latter was 22.7% below the request. The reduction EHS was a continuation of the Houseþs downsizing of the support activities provided by this program. In addition, the House directed DOE to "tax" the various programs within Environmental Restoration for the $50 million requested for an initiative to encourage the use of new cleanup technologies. The final appropriation provides $66.1 million for EHS and $275 million for the Technology Development and Environmental Science Programs ($220 million for Technology Development and $55 million for Environmental Sciences). The former is 39.3% below the request and 43% below FY1997. The Conference Report noted that Congress is providing an additional $20 million for the Defense Programþs EHS program in order to create a better balance of these activities within DOE. Funds for the other two programs are 10.7% below the request and 24.7% below FY1997. For the Environmental Science Program, the Conference Report expressed its appreciation of the programþs progress in establishing an environmental basic research program. For the Technology Development Program, the report directed the Assistant Secretary of Environmental Management to take responsibility for getting technologies developed in this program into use by the Departmentþs contractors. The Conference Report also directed DOE to report semi-annually to the Appropriations Committees on the technologies under development in the program. Many of the changes requested by DOE for FY1998 did not generate much controversy. When the transfer to full construction funding is accounted for, the net budget change for DOE's R&D programs was not great. There were, however, a number of programs which a generated debate during congressional consideration of this budget. These include solar and renewable energy, energy conservation, general science and research, fusion energy science, fossil energy and clean coal technology, and stockpile stewardship. In addition, DOE's attempt to transfer to full construction cost funding was controversial and not accepted by Congress. Solar and Renewable Energy, and Energy Conservation For the third consecutive year, DOE went to Congress with a request for a substantial increase in the solar and renewable energy, and energy conservation programs. Again, Congress did not grant that request, although each House did approve an increase over FY1997. For the two programs combined, congressional appropriations were 36% below the requested levels in FY1996 and 23.6% below the requested levels for FY1997. The final appropriations for FY1998 are 11.9% below the request. It is apparent that the Congress and Administration are converging. Those who have advocated reduced funding for these programs argue that the research currently funded by the federal government in these areas is not a federal responsibility, and that a large fraction of these programs are applied research efforts best left to the private sector and market forces. The DOE, on the other hand, claims that these programs result in reduction in consumer costs, improvement of environmental quality, enhancement of energy security and a stabilization of long term energy prices. Of particular interest is the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program for which DOE is requested a $18.3 million increase for FY1998. While supporters argue that this program overcomes historical industry-government antagonism and represents the best way to develop very high efficiency automobiles for the next century, opponents believe the PNGV is only a form of "corporate welfare" for the automobile industry, and that the market is the best arbiter of the future of the automobile. Much of the support for the large increases requested in the last three years comes from the Office of the President where conservation and renewables enjoy considerable favor. Congressional action for FY1998 suggests that there is substantial support in 105th Congress for renewable energy and energy conservation, even if Congress did not fund all of the large increases requested. The appropriations approved are higher than for FY1997. Similar support is shown in action taken in the authorization bill, H.R 1277, although that bill has not reached the House floor. High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics There is general support for these programs in Congress because of their basic research nature -- indeed it is hard to find a research effort more fundamental. The high energy physics (HEP) program, however, contained a relatively small request -- $35 million -- that could lead to a significant future mortgage for the program. These are the funds for the large hadron collider (LHC) project. Attempts to secure U.S. participation in the LHC project follow in the wake of the termination of the superconducting super collider (SSC). At that time, the HEP community determined that it should focus on those research areas this nation could do best, and should join with the international HEP community in construction of the next large device, the LHC. In addition, there were some administrative issues associated with the agreement between DOE and CERN, the European laboratory where the LHC is to be located, that caused concern in Congress during consideration of the DOE request. DOE requested $21 million for the LHC activity for FY1996 and FY1997 which Congress approved. For FY1998, the Congress also approved the DOE request but not before these administrative issues were cleared up. To join this effort will cost the United States about $450 million over the period 1996 to 2004. While small compared to the $11 billion estimate for the SSC, the LHC amount nevertheless could put a significant strain on the nation's HEP program over that several year period if no additional funding for the HEP program is forthcoming. Since it is likely that funding will be flat at least until 2002, it would seem that any funds for continued participation in the LHC will have to come from the remaining program. The request for advance appropriation for the remaining $394 million from FY1999 to FY2004 was justified as a way to affirm United States commitment to the project. Some, however, may have seen that request as a way to secure funding for the LHC project without threatening future HEP funding. The Congress did not approve the advance appropriation request. The Senate, however, did express strong support for LHC participation. The House also expressed its support but did caution DOE that it must make sure that the administrative arrangements did not put the United States at a disadvantage and that participation did not endanger the domestic high energy physics program. These same issues arose during House Science Committee consideration of H.R 1277. Language in that bill suggests concern about the impact of the LHC program on the overall HEP program, and an amendment introduced during markup, which did not pass, would have unconditionally prohibited contribution to the LHC. Most of these administrative concerns appear to have been resolved satisfactorily, and no mention of them was made in the Conference Report. The House Appropriations Committee also acknowledged the apparent resolution of these issues, although in expressing its support for LHC participation, put DOE on notice about ensuring that the project does not put the United States at a disadvantage and/or create problems for the domestic HEP program. For FY1997, DOE, at the direction of Congress, carried out a major restructuring of the magnetic fusion program. The program now emphasizes research in fusion and plasma science instead of development of a demonstration fusion power plant. The new program retains its emphasis on the tokamak concept but is expanding its efforts on alternate fusion concepts. The FY1998 budget request was the first prepared under the new program structure and goals, and the program is now nearly 40% smaller than in FY1995. There remains, however, some concern in Congress about the program. In particular, the DOE request still asked about $55 million to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project and argued that the United States should consider remaining a participant in the project if a decision to begin construction is made. DOE claims that participation in ITER is important even at the relatively low level that current budget realities would allow, because of the scientific and technical benefits the domestic program would accrue. (See Endnote 18.) Others argue that United States participation, particularly if construction were started, would divert valuable resources in a time of declining budgets which would seriously hurt the nation's fusion research effort, even though the United States contribution would be relatively small. While Congress approved continuation of the DOE contribution to the project until the design phase is completed in 1998, there is likely to be substantial debate during the next budget cycle about future U.S. involvement. Action by the House Science Committee suggests that some in the Congress believe that the program has declined enough. The addition of funds for alternate concepts and basic fusion science research indicates a base of support remains for fusion research. Concern about program plans for ITER when the design phase is complete, however, appears strong. Language in the report accompanying H.R. 1277 would require DOE to prepare a report for the Committee about the U.S. participation in the ITER project and other international activities under the assumption of level funding for the program. Similarly, congressional appropriations action for FY1998 suggests a new baseline support level for the program and agreement with the restructuring process. In addition, the Congress approved continuation of U.S. participation in ITER to the completion of the current design activity. After FY1998, however, consideration of any U.S. participation after completion of the engineering design is likely to be a major issue before Congress. The recent agreement that a construction decision will not be made upon completion of the design in 1998 raises new concerns about future participation. DOE is currently deciding what it should do about the ITER project under these new circumstances for its FY1999 request. While the stockpile stewardship program continues to receive strong support from Congress, there are signs of concern with the program. Foremost is whether DOE has clearly demonstrated that its stockpile stewardship program can serve as a surrogate for nuclear testing in order to ensure the safety, reliability and performance of the nation's nuclear stockpile. (See Endnote 19.) In particular, there are those who assert that DOE has underestimated the resources needed to accomplish the mission of the program. At the same time, others claim that the complicated experimental and computational program laid out by DOE is not necessary to assure the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapon stockpile. Rather, they argue that a straightforward program of surveillance, remanufacturing those weapon components that show signs of deterioration with age would be sufficient to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent. A main focus of this concern appears to be on NIF. (See Endnote 20.) DOE argues that the NIF is a very important component of its program to ensure that reliability and performance are maintained as the stockpile ages. The facility is expected to simulate aspects of weapon behavior not attainable by any other means short of nuclear testing. In addition to the apprehension about the program expressed above, some have raised concerns about whether NIF will be able to perform as designed, while others argue that such an elaborate program and facility are not needed to maintain U.S. nuclear deterrence without nuclear testing. There are also arguments that DOE will not be able to hold to the cost estimate given its recent history. While the Congress has expressed concern about these issues, to date, the Stockpile Stewardship program has received strong budget support. The FY1996 budget approved for the core program was about 5.4% more than requested. For FY1997, Congress approved another 5.1% increase over the DOE request. For FY1998, while the Congress did not approve full construction cost funding, the enacted appropriation is over 7% above the adjusted request. The additional funds were justified by arguing that DOE had underestimated the cost of the program. Similarly, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998 did not express any serious concern about NIF or the entire program although it, too, did not support the full construction cost funding initiative. Although there is strong support for the Stockpile Stewardship program, a current of concern about its potential effectiveness remains and might appear in the next session, particularly in context of any debate over the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Fossil Energy and Clean Coal Technology At the beginning of the year, a bi-partisan group of Members announced the formation of a coalition called "Stop Corporate Welfare" which intends to introduce legislation to review several federal programs they regard as providing inappropriate subsidies to the private sector. (See Endnote 21.) Two of the activities the coalition identified as prime candidates for phase out under this legislation are the DOE fossil energy R&D and clean coal technology programs. The coalition argued that the research and demonstrations projects funded by these programs should be supported entirely by the energy industry because they are activities with direct commercial interest. DOE, on the other hand, asserted that federal support for this research and projects is necessary because they are too speculative for the private sector to fund alone. DOE noted that over 68% of all of the funding for clean coal technology projects has come from the private sector and that the federal contribution has been effectively leveraged, well beyond the 50% minimum required by the law establishing the program. Further, DOE argued that much of its fossil energy R&D is closer to the realm of basic research than would be supported by the oil and natural gas industry. In the 104th Congress, funding for fossil energy R&D was increased above the DOE FY1997 request, and a rescission of advanced appropriations requested for the clean coal program was reduced below that DOE asked for. H.R. 1277 would also authorize an amount slightly larger than the FY1998 request. The final appropriation for FY1998 provides an increase over the request indicating that support for this program remains strong in Congress, and arguments for eliminating the federal role in funding this research were not convincing. There was renewed activity in Congress about the future DOE this session. Legislation to terminate the agency was introduced in the Senate -- S. 236 -- and the House - H.R. 1577. A major issue in all of these proposals is how to deal with DOE's R&D activities. (See Endnote 22.) The breadth of the DOE R&D program, covering as it does defense and civilian, basic and applied research and development, makes consideration of DOE R&D difficult in any attempts to change DOE's status. Attempts to terminate the agency, however, have stopped, at least for this session of Congress, as a result of agreements accompanying the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Treatment of the R&D programs in the appropriations process, shows that the balance of DOE's civilian research efforts is continuing to shift away from applied energy technology research towards the basic research programs. Congressional appropriations actions along with authorization bills considered in the House suggest continued support for DOE's basic research activities and a baseline of support for its more applied energy R&D. The principal constraint to funding DOE's R&D programs, both civilian and defense, appears to be the lack of funds resulting from the balanced budget agreement. With the exception of the solar and renewable energy, and energy conservation programs, DOE and the Congress appear to be in substantial agreement about the funding levels for the DOE research programs. It is possible that DOE will request significant increases in the two former programs again for FY1999 as part of a technological response to global climate change concerns. If so, the budget debate over these requests, as well as for other relevant energy R&D, is likely to be part of a larger debate about global climate change and U.S. responsibility. Another budget note of interest was the rejection by Congress of the DOE request to move to full construction cost funding. Other large projects -- for example the neutron spallation source -- are likely to be brought before Congress in the future, and DOE may again attempt to get a full commitment for construction funds at one time. (1) DOE's R&D activities are divided differently according to appropriations account. The Energy Resources R&D category falls within the Energy Supply R&D, Fossil Energy R&D and Energy Conservation accounts. The Science and Technology category falls within the Energy Supply R&D and General Science and Research Activities accounts. The National Security R&D category falls within the Atomic Energy Defense account. And the Environmental Quality R&D category falls within the Energy Supply R&D and Atomic Energy Defense accounts. The Fossil Energy R&D and Energy Conservation accounts fall within the jurisdiction of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee while all the other accounts are in the domain of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. (2) For a discussion of the entire DOE budget, see Congressional Research Service. The Department of Energy's FY1997 Budget coordinated by Marc Humphries. IB96020. Regularly updated. (3) Congressional Research Service. Energy Efficiency: A New National Outlook? By Fred Sissine. IB95085. Regularly updated. (4) Congressional Research Service. The Partnership of a New Generation of Vehicles by Fred Sissine. 96-191 SPR. February 28, 1996. (5) The authorization in H.R. 1277 does not include either the Federal Energy Management Program or the Municipal energy management subprogram, both of which DOE considers R&D and are included in Table 2. The two items have been subtracted from the DOE request and the FY1997 appropriation to arrive at the comparisons with the amount that would be authorized in H.R. 1277. (6) This amount contains the Federal Energy Management Program and the Municipal energy management subprogram which are not included in either version of H.R. 1277. Subtracting these two items from the House approved bill gives an appropriations of $465.6 million or about 11.7% above the H.R. 1277 amount. The equivalent appropriations recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee is about $444.2 million, or about 6.6% above the H.R. 1277 amount. (7) Congressional Research Service. Nuclear Energy Policy by Mark Holt and Warren Donnelly. IB88090. Regularly updated. (8) Congressional Research Service. Renewable Energy: A New National Outlook? By Fred Sissine. IB93063. Regularly updated. (9) U.S. Congress. H. Rpt. 105-271. September 26, 1997. pp. 102-103. (10) Congressional Research Service. Magnetic Fusion Energy: The DOE Fusion Energy Sciences Program by Richard Rowberg. IB91039. Regularly updated. (11) Congressional Research Service. The DOE Laboratories: Issues of DOE Restructuring, Missions, National R&D, and Budget by William Boesman. 95-988 SPR. September 21, 1995. (12) Congressional Research Service. High-Energy Physics Research: Description and Issues by Daniel Morgan and Richard Rowberg. 95-210 S. January 27, 1995. (13) For more details on the NGI project see: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Next Generation Internet, by Glenn McLoughlin. CRS report 97- 521 SPR. Updated September 5, 1997. (14) Congressional Research Service. Global Climate Change by John Justus and Wayne Morrissey. IB89005. Regularly updated. (15) U.S. Congress, Making Appropriations for Energy and Water Development for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1998, and for Other Purposes. 105th Cong., 1st sess., 1997. H.Rept. 105-271, 86-87. (16) Congressional Research Service. Nuclear Weapons Production Complex: Environmental Compliance and Waste by Mark Holt. IB90074. Regularly updated. (17) Congressional Research Service. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship: Alternatives for Congress by Jonathan Medalia. 96-11 F. December 14, 1995. (18) The ITER project has four international partners; Japan, the European Union, the United States, and Russia. Only Japan appears to have the resources to host construction of the project which is expected to cost from $8 to $10 billion. It is assumed that the host partner would have to provide the major share of that cost. A decision on whether to proceed with construction is due in 1998 when the engineering design activity is completed. (19) Floyd D. Spence. Chairman, U.S. House of Representatives National Security Committee. The Clinton Administration and Nuclear Stockpile Stewardship: Erosion by Design. October 30, 1996. (20) Congressional Research Service. The National Ignition Facility and Stockpile Stewardship: Highlights and Issues by Richard Rowberg. 97-464 SPR. April 18, 1997. (21) "New Crusade Against 'Corporate Welfare' Takes Aim at DOE Research." Insider Energy/ with Federal Lands. McGraw-Hill Companies. February 3, 1997, p.11. (22) Congressional Research Service. Department of Energy: History, Status and Options by Carl Behrens, Rob Bamberger and Richard Rowberg. 97-54 ENR. January 3, 1997.
|
CRS Reports Home
|
||
 |
National Council for Science and the Environment 1725 K Street, Suite 212 - Washington, DC 20006 202-530-5810 - info@NCSEonline.org |
 |
