This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-379 
entitled 'National Energy Policy: Inventory of Major Federal Energy 
Programs and Status of Policy Recommendations' which was released on 
June 14, 2005.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

June 2005: 

National Energy Policy: 

Inventory of Major Federal Energy Programs and Status of Policy 
Recommendations: 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-379]: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-379, a report to congressional requesters: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The lives of most Americans are affected by energy. Increased energy 
demand and higher energy prices has led to concerns about dependable, 
affordable, and environmentally sound energy. The federal government 
has adopted energy policies and implemented programs over the years 
that have focused on the appropriate role of the federal government in 
energy, attempting to achieve balance between supply and conservation. 
The May 2001 National Energy Policy (NEP) report contained over 100 
recommendations that it stated, taken together, provide a national 
energy plan that addresses the energy challenges facing the nation. As 
Congress considers existing federal energy programs and proposed energy 
legislation in support of the May 2001 report, GAO was asked to (1) 
identify major federal energy-related efforts, (2) review the status of 
efforts to implement the recommendations in the May 2001 NEP report, 
and (3) determine the extent to which resources associated with federal 
energy-related efforts have changed since the release of the NEP 
report. 

What GAO Found: 

Over 150 energy-related program activities and 11 tax preferences 
address eight major energy activity areas: (1) energy supply, (2) 
energy’s impact on the environment and health, (3) low-income energy 
consumer assistance, (4) basic energy science research, (5) energy 
delivery infrastructure, (6) energy conservation, (7) energy assurance 
and physical security, and (8) energy market competition and education. 
At least 18 federal agencies, from the Department of Energy (DOE) to 
the Department of Health and Human Services, have energy-related 
activities. Based on fiscal year 2003 data (the most complete data 
available), the federal government provided a minimum of $9.8 billion 
in estimated budget authority for the energy-related programs we 
identified. In addition, various federal energy-related income tax 
preferences provided another estimated $4.4 billion in outlay 
equivalent value, primarily for energy supply objectives. On the 
revenue side, the federal government collected about $10.1 billion in 
fiscal year 2003 through various energy-related programs and about 
$34.6 billion in energy-related excise taxes. Significant collections 
involve royalties from the sale of oil and gas resources on federal 
lands, while taxes on gasoline and other fuels account for most of the 
excise taxes. 

While DOE reports that most of the 2001 NEP report recommendations are 
implemented, it is difficult to independently assess the status of 
efforts made to implement these recommendations because of limited 
information and the open-ended nature of some of the recommendations 
themselves. For example, the NEP report recommended the development of 
energy educational programs, including possible legislation to create 
education programs funded by the energy industry. However, DOE’s 
January 2005 status report on NEP implementation provided only an 
overview of federal energy education efforts and made no mention of 
possible legislation to create such programs. In addition, some of the 
recommendations are open-ended and lack a specific, measurable goal, 
which makes it difficult to assess progress. Without a specific, 
measurable goal, it can be difficult to understand how and to what 
extent activities are helping to fulfill a recommendation. While this 
report does not make recommendations, it provides observations on the 
lack of information on the status of the NEP recommendations, which may 
hinder policy makers in assessing progress and determining future 
energy policies. 

Resources devoted to energy-related programs have grown since the 
release of the NEP report. For example, compared with fiscal year 2000, 
just prior to the 2001 NEP report, fiscal year 2003 estimated budget 
authority for energy-related programs grew by about 30 percent, from 
$7.3 billion to $9.6 billion. In addition, over the same period, 
estimated outlay equivalents for energy-related income tax preferences 
grew by over 60 percent, from $2.7 billion to $4.4 billion. Federal 
efforts have continued to address the eight major energy activities. 
Energy supply continues to be a major emphasis of the federal efforts, 
accounting for a majority of the growth. 

What GAO Recommends: 

This report does not contain any recommendations. In commenting on this 
report, DOE stated that the NEP report and status report were not 
intended to provide a full accounting of federal energy-related 
activities. Our report does not suggest that they were so intended. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-379.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Jim Wells at (202) 512-
3841 or wellsj@gao.gov. 

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Over 150 Different Federal Government Program Activities Address 
Energy: 

It Is Difficult to Assess Progress of Federal Efforts to Implement the 
National Energy Policy Report Recommendations: 

Federal Resources Devoted to Energy-Related Activities Have Grown since 
2000: 

Observations: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

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

Appendix III: Federal Electricity Support: 

PMAs and TVA Market and Deliver Power Generated at Federal Facilities: 

Rural Utilities Service Provides Federal Loans and Loan Guarantees: 

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

Appendix V: Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003 Estimated Budget Authority for 
Agency Programs, by Energy Activity Area: 

Appendix VI: Comparison of Budget Requests for Fiscal Years 2000, 2003, 
and 2005 for Agency Programs, by Energy Activity: 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Federal Resources for the Eight Major Energy Activity Areas, 
Fiscal Year 2003: 

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

Table 3: Federal Resources for Energy Supply, by Major Energy Type, 
Fiscal Year 2003: 

Table 4: Federal Resources for Energy's Impact on the Environment and 
Health, by Agency, Fiscal Year 2003: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 11: Estimated Budget Authority for Energy Activity Area, Fiscal 
Years 2000 and 2003: 

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

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

Table 14: Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by Activity and Agency 
Program, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget Authority: 

Table 15: Inventory of Agencies and Programs Identified with Energy 
Activity, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget Authority: 

Table 16: Inventory of Federal Energy Supply Programs, by Major Energy 
Type, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget Authority: 

Table 17: Estimated Implicit Support to Federal Electric Power in 1998 
(1999 dollars): 

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

Abbreviations: 

ASCR: Advanced Scientific Computing Research: 

BES: Basic Energy Science: 

BLM: Bureau of Land Management: 

CAFE: Corporate Average Fuel Economy: 

CFTC: Commodity Futures Trading Commission: 

CHP: combined heat and power: 

CSLF: Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

DOI: Department of the Interior: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

EIA: Energy Information Administration: 

ENRD: Environment and Natural Resources Division: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

FEMP: Federal Energy Management Program: 

FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: 

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration: 

FTA: Federal Transit Administration: 

FTC: Federal Trade Commission: 

FY: fiscal year: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

IEA: International Energy Agency: 

IPHE: International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy: 

LIHEAP: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: 

MMS: Minerals Management Service: 

NEP: May 2001 National Energy Policy report: 

NEPDG: National Energy Policy Development Group: 

NHHOR: Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve: 

NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

NSF: National Science Foundation: 

NSR: New Source Review: 

OAR: Office of Air and Radiation: 

OCS: outer continental shelf: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OSM: Office of Surface Mining: 

PMA: Power Marketing Administration: 

R&D: research and development: 

RUS: Rural Utilities Service: 

SEC: Securities and Exchange Commission: 

SPR: Strategic Petroleum Reserve: 

TVA: Tennessee Valley Authority: 

USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

USTDA: U.S. Trade and Development Agency: 

WIP: Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program: 

Letter June 10, 2005: 

The Honorable Robert Byrd: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Jeff Bingaman: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable James Jeffords: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Environment and Public Works: 
United States Senate: 

The daily lives of most Americans--as well as the health of our economy 
and our high standard of living--are directly affected by the 
availability of energy. Most sectors of American society, from the 
agricultural and industrial to the transportation and residential, rely 
upon a readily available supply of energy to function. According to the 
most recent data from the Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy 
Information Administration (EIA), the United States is the largest 
single consumer of energy, accounting for one-fourth of the world's 
consumption. Consumption is expected to grow here and throughout the 
world in the near future. Further, energy prices have risen 
significantly in recent years--American consumers now spend about three-
quarters of a trillion dollars a year on it--and prices are not 
expected to drop significantly in the foreseeable future. The prospect 
of increased demand--and perhaps still higher prices--has led to 
concerns about the adequacy of our energy supply to sustain these 
consumption levels. 

Although the federal government has adopted various energy policies and 
implemented related programs over the years, energy policies have 
frequently been the subject of heated debate. Concerns about these 
policies and programs have most often focused on the appropriate role 
of the federal government in energy matters and in how to achieve the 
appropriate balance between increasing supply and encouraging 
conservation. The May 2001 National Energy Policy (NEP) report laid out 
the most recent national energy policy proposal: that is, to promote 
dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and 
distribution of energy for the future. The NEP report contained over 
100 recommendations that it stated, taken together, provide a national 
energy plan that addresses the energy challenges facing the nation. As 
Congress considers existing federal energy programs and proposed energy 
legislation in support of the NEP report, you asked us for a clearer 
understanding of how the federal government is working to meet our 
nation's energy needs. Specifically, you asked us to (1) identify the 
federal government's major energy-related efforts, (2) review the 
status of efforts to implement the May 2001 NEP report recommendations, 
and (3) determine the extent to which resources associated with federal 
energy-related efforts have changed since the release of the NEP 
report. 

To identify the federal government's major energy-related efforts, we 
focused our review on several key federal agencies that have the most 
responsibility for implementing the recommendations of the NEP report: 
the Departments of Energy, the Interior, Commerce, Transportation, 
State, and Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency. In 
addition to identifying energy-related program activities, we 
identified energy-related income tax preferences[Footnote 1] from the 
lists of tax expenditures published annually by the Office of 
Management Budget that accompany the President's budget. We also 
obtained data on energy-related federal collections, including revenue 
from royalties, fees, and excise taxes. We collected and analyzed 
agency-reported program and tax policy descriptions and budget request 
and funding information at these key agencies and at other agencies as 
time allowed; we developed an inventory of the energy-related program 
activities we identified. Because it was often difficult to quantify 
the resources associated with energy-related aspects of various 
programs, where possible, we relied on agency estimates of budget 
authority[Footnote 2] for fiscal year 2003--the most recent year for 
which data were available for most of the programs as we conducted the 
majority of our review during fiscal year 2004. For example, some 
programs received budget authority as part of a larger appropriation, 
and agencies had to estimate the portion associated with the energy-
related activity. To facilitate comparing the energy-related resources 
associated with outlay and tax programs, we used the Department of the 
Treasury's outlay equivalent[Footnote 3] estimates for the income tax 
preferences. The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is 
useful for gauging general magnitude but does not take into account 
interactions between individual provisions. We were not able to review 
every agency within the federal government that might have energy-
related activities. Principally, we did not review the Department of 
Defense (DOD), which is, among other things, a principal federal 
government energy consumer. In addition, although the federal 
government has a major impact on the energy industry through regulatory 
actions, this review did not include an inventory of federal regulatory 
actions that affect energy, but rather focused on federal energy-
related programs and tax policies. 

To review the status of federal efforts to implement the 
recommendations contained in the May 2001 NEP report, we reviewed 
publicly reported status information on the implementation of the NEP 
recommendations, focusing on DOE's most recent January 2005 report on 
the status of the 106[Footnote 4] NEP recommendations. We discussed 
efforts to monitor and report on the status of these recommendations 
with DOE's Office of National Energy Policy and other federal agencies 
involved in energy-related efforts. We also discussed the energy-
related programs with the appropriate agency personnel and, when 
possible, determined whether and how the programs were related to the 
NEP report recommendations. 

To determine the extent to which resources associated with federal 
energy-related efforts have changed since the release of the NEP 
report, we compared fiscal year 2000 (shortly before the NEP report) 
federal programs and budget authority estimates with fiscal year 2003 
programs and budget authority estimates. In addition, we compared 
outlay equivalent estimates for energy-related income tax preferences 
between fiscal years 2000 and 2003. Due to the constraints of 
developing an inventory of federal energy-related efforts and 
associated resources within the review time frame, we did not assess 
the changes within the individual program activities within our 
inventory. We conducted our review between December 2003 and May 2005 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. A 
detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology is 
contained in appendix I. 

Results in Brief: 

Federal agencies oversee a myriad of energy-related programs and income 
tax preferences that address eight major energy activity areas: (1) 
energy supply, (2) energy's impact on the environment and health, (3) 
low-income energy consumer assistance, (4) basic energy science 
research, (5) energy delivery infrastructure, (6) energy conservation, 
(7) energy assurance and physical security, and (8) energy market 
competition and education. At least 18 different federal agencies, from 
the Department of Energy (DOE) to the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS), have energy-related program activities, with DOE 
accounting for more than one-half the federal government's energy-
related budget authority, based on fiscal year 2003 estimates. In 
fiscal year 2003, the federal government provided a minimum of $9.8 
billion in estimated budget authority for the over 150 energy-related 
program activities we identified. Energy supply programs represent 
about one-quarter of these federal program resources at $2.4 billion, 
followed by about $2.2 billion for low-income energy assistance, about 
$1.9 billion to address energy's impact on the environment and health, 
$1.2 billion for basic energy science research, about $0.9 billion for 
energy delivery infrastructure, about $0.8 billion for energy 
conservation, and about $0.2 billion each for energy assurance and 
security and energy market competition and education. In addition, 
various federal energy-related income tax preferences provided another 
estimated $4.4 billion in outlay equivalent value in fiscal year 2003, 
primarily for energy supply objectives. On the revenue side, in fiscal 
year 2003, the federal government collected about $10.1 billion through 
various energy-related programs and about $34.6 billion in energy-
related excise taxes. Collections include offsetting fees that fund 
energy-related programs; however, significant collections are from 
federal oil and gas royalties, while taxes on gasoline and other fuels 
account for most of the excise tax revenue. 

It is difficult to assess the status of efforts made to implement the 
NEP report recommendations because of limited information and the open-
ended nature of some of the recommendations themselves. Four years 
after the release of the NEP report, implementation of most of its 
recommendations remains a work in progress since they either address 
ongoing federal activities or require legislation to be enacted. While 
DOE's January 2005 status report provided more information on the 
status of recommendation implementation than has been previously 
reported, that information is still incomplete. For example, the 2001 
NEP report recommended the development of energy educational programs, 
including possible legislation to create education programs funded by 
the energy industry. However, DOE's January 2005 status report provided 
only an overview of federal energy education efforts and made no 
mention of possible legislation to create education programs. Some of 
the recommendations in the 2001 NEP report are open-ended and lack 
specific, measurable goals, which contribute to the difficulty in 
assessing progress made toward implementing the recommendations. For 
example, a NEP report recommendation is that the President make energy 
security a priority of our trade and foreign policy. In reporting on 
the status of this recommendation, DOE states that energy security has 
been made a priority of our trade and foreign policy through various 
bilateral and multilateral activities, such as the U.S.-China Oil and 
Gas Industry Forum. Because this recommendation lacks a specific, 
measurable goal, it is difficult to understand how and to what extent 
the activities mentioned are helping to fulfill the recommendation. 
Appendix IV provides a complete list of the NEP recommendations, DOE's 
January 2005 reported status, and GAO observations on the reported 
status. 

Federal resources devoted to energy-related program activities have 
grown since the release of the 2001 NEP report. For example, compared 
with fiscal year 2000, just prior to the release of the NEP report, 
fiscal year 2003 estimated budget authority for energy-related programs 
grew by about 30 percent, from $7.3 billion to $9.6 billion. In 
addition, over the same time period, outlay equivalent estimates for 
energy-related income tax preferences grew by over 60 percent, from 
$2.7 billion to $4.4 billion. While we did not review changes within 
individual programs and tax policies, federal efforts have continued to 
address the eight major energy activities of supply, environment and 
health, low-income assistance, basic science, infrastructure, 
conservation, assurance and security, and competition and education. 
Energy supply continues to be a major emphasis of the federal efforts, 
accounting for a majority of both total federal resources and their 
growth since 2000. For example, income tax preferences associated with 
energy supply have represented almost all of the $1.7 billion growth in 
income tax preferences. Within energy supply income tax preferences, 
growth has occurred primarily with efforts targeting fossil and 
renewable energy supplies. While this report does not contain 
recommendations, we do note a lack of a central source of information 
on the progress of federal energy-related efforts that may hinder 
policy makers in determining the direction of future energy policy 
initiatives. 

Over 150 Different Federal Government Program Activities Address 
Energy: 

At least 18 different federal agencies, from DOE to HHS, conduct at 
least 158 energy-related program activities. These programs address 
eight major categories of activities, ranging from energy supply to 
energy conservation. In fiscal year 2003, for the energy program 
activities we identified, the federal government provided at least $9.8 
billion in estimated budget authority. In addition, 11 federal energy-
related income tax preferences were estimated at $4.4 billion in outlay 
equivalent value for fiscal year 2003. On the revenue side, in fiscal 
year 2003, the federal government collected about $10.1 billion through 
various energy-related programs that include fees and royalties on 
development of federal energy resources and about $34.6 billion in 
excise taxes on gasoline and other fuels. 

Major Energy Program Activities Fall into Eight Categories: 

Federal energy-related programs and income tax preferences address 
eight major energy activity areas: (1) energy supply, (2) energy's 
impact on the environment and health, (3) low-income energy consumer 
assistance, (4) basic energy science research, (5) energy delivery 
infrastructure, (6) energy conservation, (7) energy assurance and 
physical security, and (8) energy market competition and education. On 
the basis of our analysis of fiscal year 2003 estimated budget 
authority for energy-related programs and outlay equivalent estimates 
for energy-related income tax preferences, resources to address energy 
supply activities accounted for almost one-half of the $14.2 billion in 
federal energy-related resources. Table 1 provides a summary of fiscal 
year 2003 resources for energy-related programs we identified and 
income tax preferences by the eight major energy activity areas. 
Appendix II provides additional details on energy-related programs by 
major activity area, by agency, and by energy type. In addition to 
programs and income tax preferences, other federal policies that are 
not quantified also affect these major energy areas. For example, in 
the supply area, the federal government provides electricity support 
through federal utilities and loan programs. Also, regarding energy's 
impact on the environment and energy conservation, the federal 
government, as a major energy user, has energy use policies that 
influence both the type and amounts of energy used. 

Table 1: Federal Resources for the Eight Major Energy Activity Areas, 
Fiscal Year 2003: 

Dollars in billions. 

Energy activity area: Energy supply; 
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $2.39; 
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $4.18. 

Energy activity area: Energy's impact on the environment and health; 
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $1.87; 
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $0.09. 

Energy activity area: Low-income energy consumer assistance; 
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $2.21; 
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: None. 

Energy activity area: Basic energy science research; 
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $1.17; 
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: None. 

Energy activity area: Energy delivery infrastructure; 
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $0.88; 
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: None. 

Energy activity area: Energy conservation; 
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $0.79; 
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $0.11. 

Energy activity area: Energy assurance and physical security; 
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $0.25; 
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: None. 

Energy activity area: Energy market competition and education; 
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $0.24; 
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: None. 

Total; 
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $9.80; 
Income tax preferences: (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $4.38. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates. 

[A] The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful 
for gauging general magnitude and does not take into account 
interactions between individual provisions. 

[End of table]

Energy Supply: 

On the basis of our analysis of fiscal year 2003 resources, energy 
supply programs and related income tax preferences accounted for about 
$6.6 billion, or almost one-half of the federal resources provided to 
energy-related programs. We identified 6 agencies, conducting 65 
different program activities, addressing supply issues such as access 
for energy development on federal lands, research and development for 
energy sources ranging from clean coal to nuclear fusion, and nuclear 
energy regulation. In addition to these 6 agencies, Treasury reports on 
9 different income tax preferences that address energy supply. 
Specifically, several provisions of the Internal Revenue Code grant 
favorable tax treatment to activities such as the recovery of the 
actual capital investment costs of discovering, purchasing, and 
developing energy. These income tax preferences accounted for about 
$4.18 billion in fiscal year 2003 outlay equivalent estimates, more 
than the total estimated budget authority of $2.39 billion for energy 
supply programs. Table 2 shows fiscal year 2003 outlay equivalent 
estimates for supply-related income tax preferences and fiscal year 
2003 estimated budget authority for energy supply programs by major 
federal agency. Appendix II provides details on energy supply programs 
by agency and energy type. 

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

Dollars in thousands. 

Income tax preferences: Alternative (nonconventional) fuel production 
credit (from fossil sources); 
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $1,720,000. 

Income tax preferences: Excess of percentage over cost depletion, 
fuels; 
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $910,000. 

Income tax preferences: Credit for enhanced oil recovery costs; 
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $620,000. 

Income tax preferences: New technology credit; 
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $380,000. 

Income tax preferences: Expensing of exploration and development costs, 
fuels; 
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $230,000. 

Income tax preferences: Capital gains treatment of royalties on coal; 
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $140,000. 

Income tax preferences: Exclusion of interest on energy facility bonds; 
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $130,000. 

Income tax preferences: Income tax credits for alcohol fuels; 
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $30,000. 

Income tax preferences: Exception from passive loss limitation for 
working interests in oil and gas properties; 
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $20,000. 

Income tax preferences: Total; 
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $4,180,000. 

Program activities, by agency: Department of Energy; 
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $1,259,299. 

Program activities, by agency: Department of the Interior; 
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $513,423. 

Program activities, by agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $392,094. 

Program activities, by agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $181,313. 

Program activities, by agency: National Science Foundation; 
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $44,237. 

Program activities, by agency: Environmental Protection Agency; 
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $1,200. 

Program activities, by agency: Total; 
Outlay equivalent estimates[A]: $2,391,566. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates. 

[A] The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful 
for gauging general magnitude and does not take into account 
interactions between individual provisions. 

[End of table]

Supply programs address four primary types of energy: fossil, 
renewable, nuclear, and alternative. Fossil energy supply includes 
coal, oil, and natural gas production and accounted for $4.7 billion of 
the almost $6.6 billion in fiscal year 2003 resources for energy supply 
programs. Fossil resources included $1.1 billion in estimated budget 
authority for programs such as clean coal technology research and 
development. Resources addressing fossil supply also included an 
estimated $3.6 billion in outlay equivalent value from 6 different 
income tax preferences. These income tax preferences include the 
support of fossil fuel production from nonconventional sources such as 
synthetic fuels produced from coal. Renewable energy supply includes 
hydropower, biomass, geothermal, wind, and solar energy. Estimated 
budget authority for renewable programs was at $349 million in fiscal 
year 2003, and these programs generally address renewable energy 
research and development. In addition, 2 income tax preferences, a new 
technology credit and exclusion of interest on facility bonds, 
supported renewable energy at an estimated outlay equivalent of $510 
million in fiscal year 2003. Nuclear energy supply-related programs, 
with estimated budget authority of about $507 million in fiscal year 
2003, address nuclear fission and mainly consist of DOE's nuclear 
energy research and development programs and the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's (NRC) regulation of nuclear energy. Finally, alternative 
energy programs, with estimated budget authority of $439 million in 
fiscal year 2003, include transportation fuels other than gasoline or 
diesel; traditional energy sources used in untraditional ways 
(distributed energy);[Footnote 5] and energy sources of the future, 
such as hydrogen and fusion. Hydrogen and fusion programs account for 
most of the programs under alternative energy. In addition, 1 tax 
preference, providing tax credits for alcohol fuels, supports 
alternative energy supply. Table 3 shows the fiscal year 2003 level of 
resources by energy supply type. Appendix II provides additional 
details on the types of energy supply addressed by specific agency 
programs. 

Table 3: Federal Resources for Energy Supply, by Major Energy Type, 
Fiscal Year 2003: 

Dollars in thousands. 

Energy type: Fossil; 
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $1,074,021; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $3,640,000. 

Energy type: Renewable; 
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): 348,962; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $510,000. 

Energy type: Nuclear; 
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): 506,535; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $0. 

Energy type: Alternative; 
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): 439,048; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $30,000. 

Total; 
Agency program activities (estimated budget authority): $2,368,566[B]; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: $4,180,000. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates. 

[A] The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful 
for gauging general magnitude and does not take into account 
interactions between individual provisions. 

[B] Total energy supply-related programs were $2,391,566 (in 
thousands); however, 1 program was not focused on a specific type of 
energy and, thus, was not included in this table--representing the 
difference of $23 million. 

[End of table]

In addition to resources for programs and income tax preferences 
directed at the energy sector, the federal government provides other 
forms of support, largely to users of electricity. While this support 
is not captured in the programs or income tax preferences, it does 
provide benefits that represent implicit federal support for certain 
users of electricity. Specifically, there are five federal utilities, 
four Power Marketing Administrations (PMA) and the Tennessee Valley 
Authority (TVA), that provide electricity and transmission services to 
customers in their regions. The PMAs market power produced primarily at 
federal hydroelectric dams and projects that are owned and operated by 
either the Department of the Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Reclamation, 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or the International Boundary and 
Water Commission. TVA markets electricity produced at its own fossil, 
nuclear, and hydroelectric energy facilities. In addition, another 
federal agency, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), provides federal 
loan guarantees and other services to rural utilities. The federal 
support provided through these agencies differs from that of the other 
programs and incentives described in this report because it does not 
provide any federal funding to electricity customers. Revenue from 
sales of electricity generated by federally owned facilities and from 
loan repayment (in the case of RUS) is intended to largely pay the 
costs to the federal government of providing the electricity and loans. 
Therefore, the programs undertaken by these agencies are intended to be 
revenue-neutral to the federal government. Nonetheless, the electricity 
support provided by these agencies constitutes a benefit to users--an 
implicit federal subsidy--because the revenues collected by the 
agencies have generally been below what would have been collected for 
the same services by private entities. Appendix III provides additional 
details on these support programs. 

Energy's Impact on the Environment and Health: 

We identified 29 program activities, implemented by 11 different 
agencies,[Footnote 6] that address the impact of energy development and 
use on the environment and health. In fiscal year 2003, these programs 
represented estimated budget authority of $1.87 billion. In addition, 
an income tax preference for clean-fuel burning vehicles amounted to an 
estimated $90 million outlay equivalent in fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 
7] Major program focuses include nuclear waste cleanup and 
environmental science research. The largest portion of the funding in 
this energy policy area goes to DOE, which received an estimated $1.6 
billion for energy-related programs in fiscal year 2003. The 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a primary mission of 
protecting the nation's environment, is also a major agency involved in 
addressing energy's impact on the environment and health. EPA is a 
major regulator of energy development and use through its 
implementation of environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act. We 
were able to quantify an estimated $24.2 million in fiscal year 2003 
that supported EPA programs addressing energy's impact on the 
environment. However, EPA regulatory activities affect more than the 
energy sector, and, because EPA does not track costs by industry 
sector, the agency was not able to determine with complete certainty 
how much of its $8 billion annual budget is energy-related. Thus, we 
believe the estimate for EPA programs related to energy's impact on the 
environment is understated. Finally, because energy development and use 
can have a significant impact on the environment and health,[Footnote 
8] other programs that primarily address other areas, such as renewable 
supply and energy conservation, also address the environmental impacts 
of energy. However, within this inventory, those programs are accounted 
for under their primary area of energy supply and conservation and are 
not also included here. Table 4 summarizes fiscal year 2003 resources 
for energy's impact on the environment and health, by major agency; 
appendix II provides more details on the agencies' individual programs. 

Table 4: Federal Resources for Energy's Impact on the Environment and 
Health, by Agency, Fiscal Year 2003: 

Dollars in thousands. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Estimated budget authority: $1,599,566. 

Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development; 
Estimated budget authority: $91,900. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Estimated budget authority: $83,671. 

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; 
Estimated budget authority: $24,200. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Estimated budget authority: $19,148. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Estimated budget authority: $18,778. 

Agency: Department of Commerce; 
Estimated budget authority: $16,632. 

Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 
Estimated budget authority: $9,697. 

Agency: Department of State; 
Estimated budget authority: $1,440. 

Agency: Department of Transportation; 
Estimated budget authority: $650. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Estimated budget authority: $111. 

Agency: Total; 
Estimated budget authority: $1,865,793. 

Tax preference for clean-fuel burning vehicles (outlay equivalent 
estimate)[A]; 
Estimated budget authority: $90,000. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates. 

[A] The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful 
for gauging general magnitude and does not take into account 
interactions between individual provisions. 

[End of table]

In addition to these programs, the federal government addresses 
energy's impact on the environment through policies that are difficult 
to quantify. For example, the federal government has set standards and 
offered incentives to the private sector and citizens to reduce the 
effects of fossil fuel use and to reduce reliance on fossil fuel for 
energy. These include standards for smokestack and motor vehicle 
emissions, home appliances, and building materials and practices. In 
addition, the federal government is a significant consumer of energy 
and, through its consumption decisions, can choose to consume energy 
that is less harmful to the environment. In the late 1990s, the federal 
government embarked on its "greening of the government" initiative and 
sought to reduce reliance on the use of fuels in its buildings and 
vehicles that contribute the most to pollution. Executive Order 13123, 
Greening of the Government Through Efficient Energy Management, signed 
June 3, 1999, addresses greenhouse gas emissions from federal 
facilities and makes energy-efficiency targets more stringent. This 
order requires that each agency reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 
30 percent by 2010 when compared with 1990 emissions levels. 

Low-income Energy Consumer Assistance: 

The federal government provides funding to assist low-income consumers 
through two block grant programs: (1) the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program (LIHEAP), managed by HHS, provides grants to states 
to fund fuel payment assistance and home energy efficiency improvements 
for low-income households and (2) DOE's Weatherization Assistance 
Program provides funds to make dwellings more fuel efficient in the 
long term for low-income households. The total estimated budget 
authority for these two programs in fiscal year 2003 was $2.212 
billion, with the majority of the budget authority ($1.988 billion) 
being for LIHEAP. 

LIHEAP seeks to increase the health and prosperity of communities and 
tribes by assisting low-income households, particularly those with the 
lowest income that pay a high proportion of household income for home 
energy, in meeting their immediate home energy needs. LIHEAP operates 
in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Indian tribes or tribal 
organizations, and U.S. territories. LIHEAP offers three types of 
assistance: heating/cooling bill payment, energy crisis, and 
weatherization and energy-related home repairs. Each state operates its 
own program, which includes taking applications, establishing 
eligibility, and making decisions on the kinds of assistance it will 
offer. In fiscal year 2003, LIHEAP received $1.988 billion in budget 
authority. During that fiscal year, approximately 4.4 million 
households received heating assistance; 494,000 households received 
cooling aid; 1.1 million received winter/year-round crisis aid; 71,000 
received summer crisis aid; and 113,000 received weatherization 
assistance. Households may receive more than one kind of LIHEAP 
assistance. Thus, even though the precise number of households assisted 
is not known, 4.8 million households are estimated to have received 
assistance in fiscal year 2003. 

DOE's Weatherization Assistance Program is part of the department's 
Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program (WIP). The overall goal of 
WIP is to develop, promote, and accelerate the adoption of energy 
efficiency, renewable energy, and oil displacement technologies and 
practices by a wide range of customers--including state and local 
governments, weatherization agencies, communities, companies, fleet 
managers, building code officials, technology developers, tribal 
governments, and international agencies. In fiscal year 2003, DOE 
received about $224 million in budget authority for the Weatherization 
Assistance Program to provide weatherization assistance for low-income 
residences. The weatherization program also provides technical 
assistance and formula grants to state and local weatherization 
agencies to help low-income residents with weatherization services. 
Also, the weatherization program, as part of WIP, addresses energy 
conservation areas as it helps to reduce demand for fuels and peak 
loads on constrained electricity systems and modernizes conservation 
technologies and practices.[Footnote 9]

Basic Energy Science Research: 

Basic energy sciences consist of general energy-related research within 
DOE's Office of Science. The Office of Science's Basic Energy Science 
(BES) Program (fiscal year 2003 estimated budget authority of $1.0 
billion) and its Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) Program 
(fiscal year 2003 estimated budget authority of $163 million) encompass 
the basic energy science research programs we identified. The BES 
program is a multipurpose, scientific research effort aimed at 
expanding the foundation for new and improved energy technologies and 
for understanding and mitigating the environmental impacts of energy 
use. BES touches virtually every aspect of energy resources--that is, 
production, conversion, efficiency, and waste mitigation.[Footnote 10] 
Energy-related research includes (1) advancing hydrogen production, 
storage, and use and developing new concepts and (2) improving existing 
models for solar energy conversion and for other energy sources. BES 
states that it provided the basic knowledge that resulted in an array 
of energy-related advances, including high-energy and high-power 
lithium batteries, highly efficient photovoltaic solar cells, and 
solutions for nuclear fuel purification/reprocessing and for cleanup of 
radioactive waste. Also, the BES research for the Hydrogen Fuel 
Initiative is based on the BES workshop report entitled Basic Research 
Needs for the Hydrogen Economy. The ASCR program supports DOE's 
strategy to ensure the security of the nation and succeed in its 
science, energy, and environmental quality missions. ASCR provides the 
fundamental mathematical and computer science research that enables the 
simulation and prediction of complex physical and biological systems. 
Its energy-related objectives include providing the science base to 
enable the development of bioenergy sources and laying the groundwork 
for DOE's Fusion Simulation Project. 

Energy Delivery Infrastructure: 

The primary purpose of energy delivery infrastructure programs is to 
facilitate the development, maintenance, and improvement of the 
comprehensive energy delivery system--for example, electricity 
transmission and distribution systems, oil refining and gas processing, 
and oil and gas pipelines. We identified 13 program activities at 6 
federal agencies that accounted for estimated budget authority of $882 
million in fiscal year 2003 that addressed energy delivery 
infrastructure. The largest investment of program dollars in energy 
infrastructure that we identified in fiscal year 2003 involved 
international infrastructure funded by the U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID) in its programs in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. The total USAID infrastructure effort amounted to about 
$561 million--or 64 percent of the total energy infrastructure funding-
-with the great majority of the effort in Iraq ($558 million).[Footnote 
11] Domestically, several programs involve the regulation of energy 
infrastructure on federal lands by DOI. In addition, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC) activities related to energy 
infrastructure include pipeline certification, hydropower licenses, and 
dam safety inspections, while the Department of Transportation (DOT) 
conducts regulatory work on pipeline safety. Table 5 provides a listing 
of infrastructure estimated budget authority for fiscal year 2003, by 
agency, while appendix II offers more details on specific programs. 

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

Dollars in thousands. 

Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development; 
Estimated budget authority: $561,100. 

Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; 
Estimated budget authority: $119,241. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Estimated budget authority: $88,384. 

Agency: Department of Transportation; 
Estimated budget authority: $63,261. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Estimated budget authority: $37,400. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Estimated budget authority: $13,030. 

Agency: Total; 
Estimated budget authority: $882,416. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates. 

[End of table]

Energy Conservation: 

Energy conservation programs include those efforts to increase energy 
efficiency and reduce the amount of energy used in all sectors, such as 
buildings and transportation. We identified 27 program activities 
related to energy conservation at 5 federal agencies that accounted for 
about $788 million in estimated budget authority for fiscal year 2003. 
Energy conservation programs at DOE represent the bulk of the 
conservation efforts, accounting for about $657 million of the $788 
million. In general, the program activities at DOE and the other major 
agencies, particularly EPA, DOT, and the National Science Foundation 
(NSF), involve research and development efforts aimed at improving 
energy conservation. In addition, an income tax preference provides 
$110 million in exclusions from income of conservation subsidies 
provided by public utilities.[Footnote 12] Table 6 provides a listing 
of energy conservation resources for fiscal year 2003, by agency, while 
appendix II provides program details. 

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

Dollars in thousands. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Estimated budget authority: $656,639. 

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; 
Estimated budget authority: $78,200. 

Agency: Department of Transportation; 
Estimated budget authority: $34,340. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Estimated budget authority: $17,963. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Estimated budget authority: $793. 

Agency: Total; 
Estimated budget authority: $787,935. 

Tax preference-conservation subsidies (outlay equivalent estimate)[A]; 
Estimated budget authority: $110,000. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates. 

[A] The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful 
for gauging general magnitude and does not take into account 
interactions between individual provisions. 

[End of table]

In addition to these programs, the federal government has addressed 
energy conservation through policies that seek to minimize the federal 
government's own energy use. The federal government is the largest 
institutional user of energy in the world and can influence the amount 
of energy used in the marketplace. The National Energy Conservation 
Policy Act, as amended, requires federal agencies to achieve reductions 
in energy use. The legislation also contains provisions concerning 
energy management requirements and incentives, life-cycle cost methods 
for energy management decisions, and new technology requirements. In 
addition, Executive Order 13123, June 3, 1999, is one of a series of 
executive orders over recent years directing federal agencies to 
demonstrate leadership in energy and environmental management, 
including energy efficient building design, construction and operation, 
and the reduction of petroleum use through improvements in fleet fuel 
efficiency. Chartered in 1973, the Federal Energy Management Program, 
administered by DOE, is charged with coordinating federal government 
energy management efforts. DOE's most recent Annual Report to the 
Congress on Federal Government Energy Management and Conservation 
Programs for Fiscal Year 2002, dated September 29, 2004, provides 
information on federal energy consumption and costs submitted to DOE by 
29 federal agencies. Specifically, the report provides information on 
(1) consumption and costs of energy by fuel type for buildings, 
vehicles, and equipment and (2) agency appropriations for energy 
conservation retrofits and capital equipment. In summary, the report 
noted that fiscal year 2002 federal consumption costs were $9.7 
billion, with 92 percent spent on two categories--62 percent on 
vehicles and equipment and 30 percent on standard buildings. DOD, 
through such energy uses as jet fuel and diesel, was by far the largest 
federal energy consumer--DOD spent $7.1 billion of the $9.7 billion and 
accounted for 73 percent of the total federal government energy use. In 
addition, the report provides information on progress toward energy 
conservation goals. For example, Executive Order 13123 requires a 30 
percent reduction by 2005 in energy consumption per square foot for 
buildings and a 35 percent reduction by 2010 from the base year of 
1985. The report indicates that energy consumption per square foot for 
buildings in fiscal year 2002 was about 24 percent less than the fiscal 
year 1985 base year. 

Energy Assurance and Physical Security: 

Energy assurance and physical security activities incorporate federal 
programs designed to respond to or prevent energy emergencies and major 
reliability and supply disruptions. This includes energy supply 
reserves, such as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and protection of 
energy production and delivery infrastructure from natural events, 
accidents, equipment failures, or deliberate sabotage. DOE has two 
programs to provide oil reserves to offset supply disruptions: the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve. In 
addition, DOE's Energy Security and Assurance Program supports the 
national security of the United States by working in close 
collaboration with state and local governments and the private sector 
to protect the nation against severe energy supply disruptions. The 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for coordinating 
the national effort to enhance critical infrastructure protection, 
including energy-related infrastructure.[Footnote 13] However, DOE is 
the sector-specific agency for the energy sector. DOE's Office of 
Energy Assurance is responsible for fulfilling the roles of critical 
infrastructure identification, prioritization, and protection for the 
energy sector, which includes the production, refining, and 
distribution of oil and gas and electric power--except for commercial 
nuclear power facilities. NRC has programs that address security for 
commercial nuclear power facilities. Table 7 lists all of the energy 
assurance and physical security-related programs that we identified and 
provides estimated program funding for fiscal year 2003. 

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

Agency/Program activity: DOE/Strategic Petroleum Reserve; 
Estimated budget authority: $171,732. 

Agency/Program activity: DOE/Northeast Heating Oil Reserve; 
Estimated budget authority: $5,961. 

Agency/Program activity: DOE/Energy Security and Assurance; 
Estimated budget authority: $25,990. 

Agency/Program activity: NRC/Homeland Security; 
Estimated budget authority: $44,316. 

Agency/Program activity: Total; 
Estimated budget authority: $247,999. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates. 

[End of table]

Energy Market Competition and Education: 

The issue of energy market competition and education includes efforts 
to ensure that competitive domestic and international energy markets 
are functioning, as well as efforts in energy education and consumer 
protection and awareness. We identified 14 program activities 
implemented by 11 different agencies that play some role in 
facilitating competitive and informed energy markets. For those 
programs for which we could obtain estimates, these programs' estimated 
budget authority was at least $238 million in fiscal year 2003. Major 
program focuses include providing federal oversight of the domestic 
natural gas, petroleum, and propane markets; providing energy 
information and education; and facilitating secure, stable, and 
competitive international energy markets that support investment in 
developing countries. DOE's EIA represented the largest program in this 
area with estimated budget authority of $80 million. While most of 
EIA's budget goes for domestic data collection and analysis activities, 
these activities serve to enhance competitive domestic and, to a lesser 
extent, international energy markets. EIA is responsible for providing 
energy information that promotes sound policy making, efficient 
markets, and public understanding.[Footnote 14] In addition, FERC, 
through its competitive market and market oversight programs, was the 
next significant program, with estimated budget authority of about $73 
million. FERC has responsibility for ensuring "just and reasonable 
rates" for the interstate transportation of natural gas and the 
wholesale price of electricity sold in interstate commerce. 
Internationally, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), 
Commerce, State, and USAID promote economic development and/or U.S. 
commercial interests in the energy sector. It was difficult to quantify 
the funding specifically associated with energy-related aspects of 
various programs in this energy activity area, and some agencies were 
not able to provide us with funding information for their energy-
related programs or activities.[Footnote 15] Significant among these 
programs were those agencies--Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
(CFTC), Department of Justice (DOJ), Securities and Exchange Commission 
(SEC), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC)--that can play a role in 
market oversight, including energy markets. Table 8 provides a summary 
of major federal agencies that play a role in energy market competition 
and education and the available estimates of budget authority for 
fiscal year 2003. Appendix II provides additional details on individual 
programs. 

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

Dollars in thousands. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Estimated budget authority: $80,087. 

Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; 
Estimated budget authority: $72,759. 

Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development; 
Estimated budget authority: $39,300. 

Agency: Department of Commerce; 
Estimated budget authority: $31,202. 

Agency: U.S. Trade and Development Agency; 
Estimated budget authority: $14,509. 

Agency: Department of State; 
Estimated budget authority: $865. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Estimated budget authority: $140. 

Agency: Commodity Futures Trading Commission; 
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available. 

Agency: Department of Justice; 
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available. 

Agency: Securities and Exchange Commission; 
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available. 

Agency: Federal Trade Commission; 
Estimated budget authority: Estimate not available. 

Agency: Total; 
Estimated budget authority: $238,862. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates. 

[End of table]

While the federal government has a limited role in setting energy 
prices or dictating buyer purchasing strategies, the federal government 
has an interest in promoting a competitive and informed energy 
marketplace that protects the public from unnecessary price volatility. 
Recent investigations of market manipulation, by companies such as 
Enron, have heightened the relevancy of the federal government's role 
in ensuring that a lack of competition or reliable market information 
do not exacerbate energy prices. Tools available to federal agencies to 
promote a competitive energy marketplace and protect the public from 
price volatility include monitoring for anticompetitive behavior; 
taking appropriate enforcement actions when necessary; and providing 
decision makers with sound, up-to-date, energy marketplace information, 
such as short-term price movements and long-term demand and supply 
trends. 

In addressing this area of market oversight, we attempted to quantify 4 
relevant agencies' level of effort in energy-related activities--CFTC, 
FTC, SEC, and DOJ. However, these 4 agencies, with overall budgets of 
$85 million for CFTC in fiscal year 2003; $177 million for FTC; $717 
million for SEC; and $22 billion for DOJ, were not able to develop 
reliable estimates of the amount of effort devoted to energy-related 
activities. CFTC officials roughly estimated that about 20 percent of 
CFTC's annual budget of $85 million, or $17 million, could be 
associated with energy-related activities. They noted that their work 
has increased in recent years because of concerns about energy markets, 
but they were not able to quantify the increase. DOJ officials told us 
that the majority of DOJ's energy-related work falls within their 
Antitrust Division and their Environment and Natural Resources Division 
(ENRD). The Antitrust Division was able to provide us with an estimate 
for energy-related work, which totaled almost $4 million in fiscal year 
2003, but ENRD was not able to provide us with a similar estimate of 
their energy-related work.[Footnote 16] Although we were not able to 
quantify energy-related funding for these 4 agencies, we were able to 
gather some basic information on major energy-related activities. For 
example: 

* CFTC resolved its natural gas manipulation case against Enron in 
fiscal year 2004. CFTC also undertook a broader energy investigation 
that focused on energy trading firms that allegedly engaged in (1) the 
reporting of false, misleading, or knowingly inaccurate market 
information, including price and volume information; (2) manipulation 
or attempted manipulation; and/or (3) "round tripping," which is a risk-
free trading practice that produces "wash" results and the reporting of 
non-bona fide prices, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. As a 
result of its efforts in this area, as of February 1, 2005, enforcement 
actions commenced by the commission have resulted in civil monetary 
penalties totaling over $297 million, among other sanctions, imposed 
against approximately 27 entities and individuals. 

* FTC, from 1981 to 2004, alleged that 15 proposed petroleum mergers 
would have resulted in significant reductions in competition and harmed 
consumers in one or more relevant markets. Four of the mergers were 
abandoned or blocked as a result of FTC or court action. In the other 
11 cases, FTC required the merging companies to divest substantial 
assets in the markets where competitive harm was likely to occur. FTC 
has, since 2000, brought seven energy-related law enforcement actions 
to prevent consumer injury from unsubstantiated, false, or deceptive 
claims concerning energy or energy-related products. 

* SEC officials reported that in 2003, there were 23 energy-related 
cases or enforcement actions brought by SEC. In addition; SEC issued 
about 100 orders under the Public Utility Holding Company Act in fiscal 
year 2003. Also, SEC's Division of Corporation Finance performed 4,088 
full reviews and full financial reviews of filings from all types of 
companies; of these, 619 were for energy-related companies. The 
division also performed 190 targeted reviews related to those energy-
related companies. 

* DOJ's Antitrust Division has energy-related responsibilities that 
include promoting competition and enforcing antitrust laws in the 
energy industries. DOJ energy-related activities within ENRD include 
(1) defending EPA's more stringent clean air standards for heavy-duty 
trucks and diesel fuel; (2) safety standards for the Yucca Mountain 
nuclear waste repository in Nevada; and (3) administrative enforcement 
actions, such as a major clean air enforcement action against coal-
fired power plants. 

Federal Government Collects Revenues through Energy-Related Programs 
and Excise Taxes: 

The federal government collects about $10.1 billion a year through 
various energy-related programs and about $34.6 billion in energy-
related excise taxes. Most of the collections are royalties, rents, and 
bonuses from oil and gas on federal lands or offshore areas; while 
taxes on gasoline and other fuels account for most of the excise tax 
revenue. 

Energy Program Collections: 

A number of energy-related programs, especially those dealing with the 
use of federal energy resources, radioactive waste, and regulation of 
the energy industry, involve the collection of federal revenues that 
are deposited into the Treasury. In fiscal year 2003, these collections 
amounted to about $10.1 billion. The majority of these collections come 
from collections associated with the production of energy resources on 
federal lands and in offshore areas. DOI's Minerals Management Service 
(MMS) collected about $8.0 billion in royalties, rents, and bonuses in 
fiscal year 2003 for the development of energy resources in federal 
lands and offshore areas.[Footnote 17] The remainders of these 
collections are generally fees to pay for energy-related programs. In 
some cases, federal agencies are authorized to use these collections to 
offset program costs. For example, the Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management in DOE collected over $1 billion from generators of 
nuclear waste in fiscal year 2003 to manage and dispose of high-level 
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. FERC collected fees from the 
entities it regulates that funded all of the cost of its regulatory 
activities related to energy, while NRC collected fees from the 
entities it regulates, including nuclear power plants, that cover about 
90 percent of its costs. Table 9 provides a breakdown of federal energy-
related collections for fiscal year 2003. 

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

Dollars in thousands. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: Minerals Management Service-Mineral Leasing Receipts/Outer 
Continental Shelf (royalties, rents and bonuses); 
Energy-related collections: $5,933,900. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: Minerals Management Service-Mineral Leasing Receipts/Onshore 
(royalties, rents and bonuses); 
Energy-related collections: $2,066,276. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: Minerals Management Service-Royalty and Offshore Minerals 
Management (offsetting collections); 
Energy-related collections: $90,000. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: Bureau of Land Management-Service Charges, Deposits, and 
Forfeitures; 
Energy-related collections: $7,900. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: Minerals Management Service-Indian Trust Responsibility 
(offsetting collections); 
Energy-related collections: $7,000. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: Office of Surface Mining-Regulation and Technology; 
Energy-related collections: $1,039. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Civilian Radioactive Waste; 
Energy-related collections: 1,038,948. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund; 
Energy-related collections: $189,000. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Program: Nuclear Energy Related Collections estimate; 
Energy-related collections: $473,966. 

Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); 
Program: FERC Competitive Markets, Energy Infrastructure, Market 
Oversight; 
Energy-related collections: $192,000. 

Agency: Department of Transportation; 
Program: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration-Natural 
Gas Pipeline Safety; 
Energy-related collections: $57,326. 

Agency: Department of Commerce; 
Program: National Institute of Science and Technology-Energy use and 
conservation programs; 
Energy-related collections: $2,000. 

Total; 
Energy-related collections: $10,059,355. 

Source: GAO analysis and estimates based on agency data. 

[End of table]

Excise Taxes: 

The Internal Revenue Code, which is administered by the Department of 
the Treasury, provides for federal excise taxes on energy fuels that 
are used in many sectors across the United States. Revenue from these 
energy-related taxes totaled over $34 billion in fiscal year 2003. The 
excise taxes, some applied at the retail and some at the manufacturers' 
level, were typically applied on a unit basis, typically by the gallon, 
and rates varied according to the content of the fuel. In general, 
these excise taxes fund certain trust funds. The largest of these, the 
excise tax on gasoline and gasohol, resulted in $24.2 billion in 
collections in fiscal year 2003 that support the Highway Trust Fund. 
The next largest revenue raiser was the excise tax on diesel fuel, 
which amounted to $8.6 billion in the same fiscal year. Most of the 
excise taxes on liquid fuels include 0.1 cent per gallon to finance the 
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. In addition to funding 
various trust funds, excise taxes can be used as a tool to achieve 
federal energy-related objectives. For example, alcohol fuels and fuels 
containing a portion of alcohol are generally taxed at a lower rate. 
The standard rate for gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon. However, a 
partial exemption of 5.4 cents per gallon from the federal excise tax 
is provided for ethanol that is derived from renewable sources and used 
as fuel. The exemption encourages the substitution of alcohol fuels 
produced from renewable sources for gasoline and diesel to reduce 
reliance on imported petroleum and to contribute to energy 
independence. In addition, dyed diesel fuel and kerosene meant for use 
in trains, school buses, and local and mass transit buses are exempt 
from the 24.3 cents per gallon excise tax on the normal varieties of 
these fuels. Another excise tax, the "gas guzzlers" levy on certain 
vehicles that do not meet standards for fuel economy per gallon, raised 
$127 million in fiscal year 2003. Table 10 provides a listing of fiscal 
year 2003 energy-related excise tax collections and the associated 
trust funds. 

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

Dollars in thousands. 

Excise tax: Alcohol fuels[A]; 
Excise tax collections: ($9,986)[B]; 
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected: 
Highway Trust Fund[C]. 

Excise tax: Aviation fuel (except gasoline); 
Excise tax collections: $739,920; 
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected: 
Airport and Airways Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank 
Trust Fund. 

Excise tax: Aviation gasoline; 
Excise tax collections: $57,953; 
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected: 
Airport and Airways Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank 
Trust Fund. 

Excise tax: Coal; 
Excise tax collections: $517,531; 
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected: Black 
Lung Disability Trust Fund. 

Excise tax: Compressed natural gas; 
Excise tax collections: $1,735; 
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected: 
Highway Trust Fund. 

Excise tax: Diesel fuel, except for trains and intracity buses; 
Excise tax collections: $8,581,467; 
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected: 
Highway Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. 

Excise tax: Dyed diesel fuel used in trains and regularly scheduled 
buses; 
Excise tax collections: $163,920; 
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected: 
Highway Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. 

Excise tax: Fuels used commercially on inland waterways; 
Excise tax collections: $111,058; 
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected: 
Inland Waterways Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank 
Trust Fund. 

Excise tax: Gas guzzlers; 
Excise tax collections: $126,685; 
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected: Not 
applicable. 

Excise tax: Gasoline and gasohol; 
Excise tax collections: $24,232,426; 
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected: 
Highway Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. 

Excise tax: Kerosene; 
Excise tax collections: $72,128; 
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected: 
Highway Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. 

Excise tax: Special motor fuels; 
Excise tax collections: $14,226; 
Trust funds receiving amounts equivalent to excise tax collected: 
Highway Trust Fund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. 

Total; 
Excise tax collections: $34,609,063.

Source: GAO analysis of Treasury estimates. 

[A] This entry is for a retail sales excise tax on diesel fuel, special 
motor fuel, or nongasoline aviation fuel containing at least 10 percent 
alcohol. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No. 108-357) 
has restructured the excise tax provisions for these fuels. 

[B] According to the Office of Tax Analysis, Department of the 
Treasury, the number for alcohol fuels collections in fiscal year 2003 
is reported as negative because adjustments are being made for earlier 
amounts allocated to the account incorrectly. 

[C] The Highway Trust Fund includes a separate Mass Transit Account for 
certain funds appropriated to the fund. 

[End of table]

It Is Difficult to Assess Progress of Federal Efforts to Implement the 
National Energy Policy Report Recommendations: 

It is difficult to fully assess the status of progress made in 
implementation of the NEP recommendations because the information DOE 
has reported has been limited. Moreover, some of the recommendations 
are open-ended and lack measurable goals, which contribute to the 
difficulty in assessing implementation progress. Finally, because the 
NEP recommendations do not reflect all federal energy-related efforts, 
understanding the overall status of federal efforts to address energy 
issues is challenging. 

Since the May 2001 NEP report, publicly reported information on the 
status of the recommendations has been limited. For example, on the 
first anniversary of the NEP report, in May 2002, DOE issued a press 
release highlighting progress made in implementing the NEP 
recommendations. According to DOE, at that time all but 1 of the 22 
recommendations, that it reported required legislative action, had 
either been enacted into law or were contained in House or Senate 
energy bills.[Footnote 18] However, DOE provided no detail on what the 
22 recommendations that required legislation were or what the status 
was of the other 84 recommendations. On the second anniversary of the 
NEP report, in May 2003, DOE again issued a press release that 
described progress in implementing the NEP recommendations. This 
document provided the first status information on each of the 106 
recommendations in the form of an NEP scorecard that characterized each 
recommendation as either under way or complete. The scorecard reported 
that 96 of the 106 recommendations were complete, although it noted 
that 16 of the "complete" recommendations involved legislation that was 
then being considered by Congress. However, DOE did not provide 
information on the progress cited specifically related to the 96 
recommendations the scorecard reported as complete or on what actions 
were planned or then under way to complete the remaining 10 
recommendations. DOE's next report on the NEP recommendations was its 
January 2005 report. In contrast to the May 2003 scorecard that 
characterized most of the recommendations as complete (but had provided 
no specific information pertinent to each), DOE's January 2005 report 
(1) characterized most recommendations as implemented but involving 
ongoing activities or requiring legislation[Footnote 19] and (2) 
provided the first information on specific actions taken to implement 
each recommendation. 

Although DOE's January 2005 report represents an improvement in the 
level of information DOE has provided on the status of NEP 
recommendation implementation, the information is still incomplete. For 
example, the NEP report recommended the development of energy 
educational programs, including possible legislation to create 
education programs funded by the energy industry. However, the January 
2005 status report provided only an overview of federal energy 
education efforts, and it made no mention of creating education 
programs through legislation. Similarly, the 2001 NEP report made a 
recommendation to the Secretary of Transportation to work with Congress 
to enact legislation to implement congestion mitigation strategies. 
However, while the reported status outlined various DOT congestion 
mitigation efforts, it did not address the legislative aspect of the 
recommendation nor did it reflect DOT efforts to propose legislation to 
address this recommendation. In addition, another recommendation was 
made to DOE and DOI to promote new oil and gas well technology, but the 
status report addressed only DOE's efforts to implement the 
recommendation. Appendix IV provides a complete list of the 106 NEP 
recommendations, DOE's reported status of the recommendations, and our 
observations. 

DOE's ability to provide consistent and complete information on the 
status of NEP implementation may have been limited by a lack of 
sustained, centralized efforts to monitor and report on the ongoing 
implementation of the NEP recommendations. For example, one of the 
first recommendations in the NEP report was that the National Energy 
Policy Development Group (NEPDG) continue to work and meet on the 
implementation of the NEP. However, the NEPDG was terminated on 
September 30, 2001, and did not meet or work on the implementation of 
the NEP recommendations after that time. Nevertheless, according to 
DOE, individual agencies have continued to coordinate implementation 
efforts and to measure and track implementation progress. Also, 
according to DOE, an interagency working group led by DOE was 
established to coordinate agencies' implementation of the NEP 
recommendations. According to DOE officials, the agency's Office of 
National Energy Policy is responsible for coordinating, and providing 
strategic direction for, the implementation of the NEP report 
recommendations. However, additional information we obtained in our 
review raises questions about the extent to which centralized 
monitoring of recommendation implementation has been sustained. For 
example, according to DOE, its NEP Office did not assume leadership of 
the interagency working group until the fall of 2003. Also, DOE 
officials told us in November 2003 that the NEP Office had not been 
fully staffed because of budget constraints. Finally, at that time, DOE 
officials also told us that implementing the NEP recommendations was 
the responsibility of individual federal agencies, and that there was 
no centralized, formal system to monitor implementation and report on 
the status of the NEP recommendations. 

The nature of some of the NEP recommendations also makes it difficult 
to assess the progress made in implementing them. Specifically, some of 
the recommendations are open-ended and lack measurable goals. For 
example, a NEP report recommendation is that the President make energy 
security a priority of our trade and foreign policy. In reporting on 
the status of this recommendation, DOE states that the recommendation 
has been implemented, with activities ongoing, because energy security 
has been made a priority of our trade and foreign policy through 
various bilateral and multilateral activities, such as the U.S.-China 
Oil and Gas Industry Forum and the International Partnership for the 
Hydrogen Economy. However, this recommendation is open-ended and does 
not contain a specific, measurable goal, thereby making it difficult to 
understand how or to what extent the activities described have helped 
to implement the recommendation. In contrast, another NEP report 
recommendation directs the Secretary of Energy to authorize the Western 
Area Power Administration to explore relieving an electricity 
transmission bottleneck in the western United States. The DOE status 
report noted that a new transmission line to relieve this bottleneck 
was completed on December 14, 2004. This recommendation sets a 
measurable infrastructure-related goal, and the status report 
demonstrated progress toward that goal. (See app. IV.)

Finally, some federal energy-related programs that address the same 
issues as some of the NEP recommendations are not mentioned in either 
the NEP recommendations or the status report, making it difficult to 
assess the overall status of federal efforts to address energy issues. 
For example, one NEP recommendation calls for the Secretary of Energy 
to conduct a review of current funding and historic performance of 
energy-efficiency research and development programs. In response, the 
status report noted that DOE completed a detailed review of its 
programs. However, at least one other federal agency, NSF, funds energy-
efficiency research and development activities as part of its overall 
science program. These activities were not specified in the 
recommendation or recognized in the status report. Other federal energy 
efforts that relate to some of the same issues that the NEP 
recommendations addressed, but were not specifically addressed in the 
recommendations or the status report, include some NRC programs and 
most USTDA and USAID programs. (See app. IV.) These agencies are not 
represented on DOE's NEP interagency task force. When we spoke with 
representatives from these agencies, they said that even though their 
programs address some of the same issues as the NEP recommendations, 
they were not involved in the development of the NEP, nor were they 
charged with implementation of the recommendations. Additionally, we 
found that the NEP report recommendations omit discussion of some 
federal energy-related efforts and the issues they address. Such 
omissions preclude a full accounting of the results of federal energy 
efforts in any NEP status report. For example, the NEP report 
recommendations do not address all energy-related excise taxes and 
energy-related income tax preferences.[Footnote 20] Regarding programs, 
our review of the NEP report did not find that it addressed basic 
energy science research; DOE nondefense nuclear waste cleanup; federal 
electricity support; FERC energy market oversight; and the overall 
market oversight roles of agencies such as CFTC, FTC, DOJ, and SEC. 

Federal Resources Devoted to Energy-Related Activities Have Grown since 
2000: 

Federal energy-related program resources have grown since the release 
of the NEP report as programs continue to address the major energy 
activity areas. For example, compared with fiscal year 2000 estimated 
budget authority, fiscal year 2003 estimated budget authority funding 
grew by about 30 percent, from $7.3 billion to $9.6 billion for those 
programs where we could identify estimated budget authority for both 
years. In addition, over the same time period, outlay equivalent 
estimates for energy-related income tax preferences grew by over 60 
percent, from $2.7 billion to about $4.4 billion. While we did not 
review changes within individual programs and tax policies, federal 
efforts have continued to address the eight major energy activities of 
supply, environment and health, low-income assistance, basic science, 
infrastructure, conservation, assurance and security, and competition 
and education. Energy supply continues to be a major emphasis of the 
federal efforts, accounting for a majority of the growth. For example, 
income tax preferences associated with energy supply have represented 
almost all of the $1.7 billion growth in income tax preferences. Within 
energy supply income tax preferences, growth has occurred primarily 
with efforts targeting fossil and renewable energy supplies. Table 11 
shows changes in program estimated budget authority, by major energy 
issue, in fiscal years 2000 and 2003. Appendix V provides a breakdown 
of the change in estimated budget authority for each program addressing 
the major energy issues. 

Table 11: Estimated Budget Authority for Energy Activity Area, Fiscal 
Years 2000 and 2003: 

Dollars in thousands. 

Energy activity area: Energy supply; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,591,377; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $2,391,566. 

Energy activity area: Energy's impact on the environment and health; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,658,668; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,865,793. 

Energy activity area: Low-income energy consumer assistance; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $1,979,350; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $2,211,837. 

Energy activity area: Basic energy science research; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $874,369; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $1,165,126. 

Energy activity area: Energy delivery infrastructure; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $136,835; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $763,175. 

Energy activity area: Energy conservation; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $724,087; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $787,935. 

Energy activity area: Energy assurance and physical security; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $160,500; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $247,999. 

Energy activity area: Energy market competition and education; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $219,101; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $166,103. 

Energy activity area: Total[A]; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2000: $7,344,287; 
Estimated budget authority: Fiscal year 2003: $9,599,533. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency estimates. 

Note: This table does not include a comparison of estimated budget 
authority for the three programs under FERC, totaling $192 million in 
fiscal year 2003 estimated budget authority, because FERC did not 
allocate its $175 million in fiscal year 2000 estimated budget 
authority among the same three programs of Energy Infrastructure, 
Market Oversight and Investigations, and Competitive Markets. 

[A] Numbers may not add due to rounding. 

[End of table]

Income tax preferences do not compete in the budget process and do not 
have to seek budget authority--they are already "fully funded" as long 
as they remain in effect. However, as has been demonstrated, they can 
represent significant resources. Current fiscal year 2005 projected 
estimates indicate energy-related income tax preferences have continued 
to grow--to $5.15 billion in outlay equivalent estimates. Table 12 
provides a profile of changes in energy-related income tax preferences 
in outlay equivalent estimates between fiscal years 2000 and 2003. 

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

Dollars in thousands. 

Tax preference: Alternative (nonconventional) fuel production credit; 
Activity area: Energy supply; 
Supply type: Fossil; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2000: $1,310,000; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2003: $1,720,000. 

Tax preference: Capital gains treatment of royalties on coal; 
Activity area: Energy supply; 
Supply type: Fossil; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2000: $90,000; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2003: $140,000. 

Tax preference: Credit for enhanced oil recovery costs; 
Activity area: Energy supply; 
Supply type: Fossil; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2000: $410,000; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2003: $620,000. 

Tax preference: Exception from passive loss limitation for working 
interests in oil and gas properties; 
Activity area: Energy supply; 
Supply type: Fossil; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2000: $20,000; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2003: $20,000. 

Tax preference: Excess of percentage over cost depletion, fuels; 
Activity area: Energy supply; 
Supply type: Fossil; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2000: $450,000; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2003: $910,000. 

Tax preference: Exclusion of interest on energy facility bonds; 
Activity area: Energy supply; 
Supply type: Renewable; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2000: $130,000; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2003: $130,000. 

Tax preference: Expensing of exploration and development costs, fuels; 
Activity area: Energy supply; 
Supply type: Fossil; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2000: $30,000; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2003: $230,000. 

Tax preference: Income tax credits for alcohol fuels; 
Activity area: Energy supply; 
Supply type: Alternatives; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2000: $20,000; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2003: $30,000. 

Tax preference: New technology credit; 
Activity area: Energy supply; 
Supply type: Renewable; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2000: $50,000; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2003: $380,000. 

Tax preference: Exclusion from income of conservation subsidies 
provided by public utilities; 
Activity area: Energy conservation; 
Supply type: Not applicable; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2000: $110,000; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2003: $110,000. 

Tax preference: Tax credit and deduction for clean-fuel burning 
vehicles; 
Activity area: Energy's impact on the environment and health; 
Supply type: Not applicable; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2000: $80,000; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2003: $90,000. 

Tax preference: Total; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2000: $2,700,000; 
Income tax preferences (outlay equivalent estimates)[A]: Fiscal year 
2003: $4,380,000. 

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

[A] The aggregate value for energy-related tax preferences is useful 
for gauging general magnitude and does not take into account 
interactions between individual provisions. 

[End of table]

Along with the growth in energy-related federal resources, budget 
requests for federal energy-related programs have also grown since 
2000. However, budget request information is not available for all of 
the programs identified in our inventory for which we have obtained 
estimates because many energy-related programs are part of larger 
programs and separate, distinct budget requests are not made for them. 
For those programs that had specific, energy-related budget requests, 
budget requests grew between fiscal years 2000 and 2003 by about 27 
percent--from $5.9 billion to $7.5 billion. This growth continued into 
fiscal year 2005, when requests reached $8.4 billion. Table 13 shows 
budget requests in fiscal years 2000, 2003, and 2005 by major energy 
activity area. Appendix VI provides a breakdown of requests for each 
program that has a budget request under the major energy areas. 

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

Dollars in thousands. 

Energy activity area: Energy supply; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,027,280; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,818,261; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $1,754,579. 

Energy activity area: Energy's impact on the environment and health; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,398,931; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,781,433; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $2,400,712. 

Energy activity area: Low-income energy consumer assistance; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,400,000; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,700,000; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $2,001,000. 

Energy activity area: Basic energy science; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $1,086,959; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $1,189,225; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $1,267,870. 

Energy activity area: Energy delivery infrastructure; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $106,401; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $169,252; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $203,353. 

Energy activity area: Energy conservation; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $579,668; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $534,248; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $514,764. 

Energy activity area: Energy assurance and physical security; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $164,000; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $201,029; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $187,700. 

Energy activity area: Energy market competition and education; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $100,444; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $110,211; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $89,700. 

Energy activity area: Total; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2000: $5,863,683; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2003: $7,503,659; 
Budget request: Fiscal year 2005: $8,419,678. 

Source: GAO analysis of budget request information. 

[End of table]

Observations: 

The nation's energy problems are not new. In the 1970s, we issued a 
series of reports to Congress on the need for both a focal point for 
dealing with energy problems and a coherent set of energy policies that 
would stand the tests of the future. While the United States does have, 
and has had, a series of energy-related programs and tax policies, 
calls for a "national energy policy" persist. Currently, hundreds of 
energy-related programs funded by the federal government, energy-
related income tax preferences, and federal regulatory requirements 
that impact energy encompass the federal government's role in energy 
policy. At the federal level, development and implementation of our 
national energy policy is a shared responsibility of the executive and 
legislative branches of government. Any progress toward understanding 
the role that the federal government plays in energy policy and 
improving upon it must start with a comprehensive inventory of these 
federal energy-related programs, tax policies, and regulatory activity. 
The NEP report, as other national energy policies have in the past, 
offers such a start toward the development of this inventory. 
Furthermore, although we are not making recommendations in this report, 
we have noted a lack of information on the results of federal energy-
related efforts. DOE's Office of National Energy Policy has an 
opportunity to serve as a key focal point in improving upon the 
measurement of results made in federal energy-related efforts. 
Establishing clear and measurable goals and having the ability to 
track, measure, and transparently report on results achieved toward 
those goals will give policy makers the information they need to 
provide continually improving direction to the federal government's 
energy-related efforts. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided DOE with a draft of this report for review and comment and 
asked DOE to coordinate any formal written comments from the other 
federal agencies included in this report. In addition, we provided a 
draft of this report to the other federal agencies in order to obtain 
comments on specific information about particular agencies' energy-
related activities. In summary, DOE responded in its written comments 
that it did not believe our report accurately reflected the goals or 
intent of the NEP, its implementation, or the Administration's ongoing 
energy security efforts. Overall, we believe DOE's comments reflect a 
basic misunderstanding about the report's objectives and the approaches 
we used to address these objectives. Specifically, with respect to our 
first objective (an inventory of major federal energy programs and 
their cost) DOE commented that our presentation of estimated budget 
authority for programs and outlay equivalent estimates for tax 
preferences represented a quantitative approach to evaluating the NEP 
report that is not consistent with its purpose. However, our first 
objective and the resulting inventory of major federal energy programs 
laid out in our report does not in any way reflect an evaluation of the 
NEP report. We prepared this inventory independent of the NEP report 
and did not intend to suggest that the NEP report was intended to 
reflect an inventory and accounting of resources comparable to the one 
we prepared. 

Our second and third objectives--dealing with the results of NEP report 
recommendation implementation and changes in resources since the NEP 
report's issuance--do have obvious connections to the NEP report. Here 
too, however, we believe DOE's comments confuse the issue by suggesting 
that our report is somehow an evaluation of the NEP report rather than 
simply a presentation of observations on actions taken and reported 
results achieved since the report's issuance. In this connection, DOE 
defends the NEP report "as an overall blueprint" and that it "is not 
sufficient to look at the President's energy policies through specific 
NEP recommendations alone." We agree and note that our report suggests 
nothing to the contrary. However, our report does focus on the reported 
results achieved in implementing these important NEP recommendations 
that, as the NEP report states, "taken together, offer the thorough and 
responsible energy plan our nation has long needed." Moreover, DOE 
implies that when we point out that many of the NEP recommendations are 
open-ended in nature, we were being critical of the recommendations. 
This is not our intent. We were simply stating as a matter of fact that 
the open-ended, nonspecific nature of many of the NEP recommendations 
complicated our reporting on recommendation implementation status. With 
respect to NEP report recommendation implementation, DOE further 
commented that DOE's own NEP status report was not intended to be 
comprehensive and that supplementary material could be found in 
unidentified "budget documents and other means." We recognize that 
status information may be available from a variety of sources, and we 
explored those sources in performing our analysis. However, in 
reviewing the status of efforts to implement the recommendations, we 
believe it was appropriate to focus on DOE's most recent report on the 
status of these recommendations. In our view, it does not seem 
unreasonable to expect that Congress and the American people could find 
relatively complete information on NEP implementation status in a 
direct format through one centralized source, especially if that source 
is entitled NEP Status Report. 

DOE and other federal agencies provided numerous technical 
clarifications, observations, and editorial comments, and we have made 
changes to this report as appropriate. DOE's written comments are 
reproduced in appendix VII. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days 
from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the 
Secretary of Energy and other interested parties. We will make copies 
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge at GAO's Web site at http:www.gao.gov. 

Questions about this report should be directed to me at (202) 512-3841. 
Key contributors to this report are James Cooksey, Nancy Crothers, 
Doreen Feldman, Mark Gaffigan, Michael Gilbert, Erica Haley, Elisabeth 
Helmer, Chir Huang, Arthur James, Alan Kasdan, Frank Rusco, John Scott, 
Karla Springer, Anne Stevens, Jena Whitley, and Monica Wolford. 

Signed by: 

Jim Wells: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

We were asked to (1) identify the federal government's major energy-
related efforts, (2) review the status of efforts to implement the May 
2001 National Energy Policy (NEP) report recommendations, and (3) 
determine the extent to which resources associated with federal energy-
related efforts has changed since the release of the NEP report. 

To identify the federal government's major energy-related efforts, we 
reviewed the federal agencies that have the most responsibility for 
implementing the recommendations of the NEP report--the Departments of 
Energy (DOE), the Interior (DOI), Commerce, Transportation (DOT), 
State, and Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA). We asked these key agencies, and other agencies as time allowed, 
to identify their energy-related work, and we developed an inventory of 
the energy-related programs that we identified. Other agencies we 
included were the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Department of 
Justice (DOJ), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Trade 
Commission, Department of Health and Human Services, Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, National Science Foundation (NSF), Securities and Exchange 
Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Trade and Development 
Agency (USTDA), and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). 
In addition to identifying energy-related programs, we relied on the 
list of energy-related tax expenditures published in the President's 
annual budget that provided income tax preferences.[Footnote 21] We 
also obtained data on energy-related federal collections, including 
revenue from royalties and user fees from the agencies. In addition, we 
also attempted to identify collections from energy-related excise 
taxes. Although the Department of the Treasury does not provide a 
specific listing of energy-related excise taxes, we used information on 
the collection of excise taxes that was published by Treasury's 
Internal Revenue Service to identify these taxes. While this 
information is updated quarterly, the last full fiscal year available 
is 2003. We collected and analyzed agency-reported program and tax 
preference descriptions and budget request and funding information at 
these key agencies. Based on our review of the NEP report and the 
program and tax preference descriptions and our discussions with 
applicable program officials, we identified eight categories of energy-
related activities and grouped the programs and tax preferences by 
these eight areas: (1) energy supply, (2) energy's impact on the 
environment and health, (3) low-income energy consumer assistance, (4) 
basic energy science research, (5) energy delivery infrastructure, (6) 
energy conservation, (7) energy assurance and physical security, and 
(8) energy market competition and education. Because it was often 
difficult to quantify the resources associated with energy-related 
aspects of various programs, where possible, we relied on agency 
estimates of budget authority[Footnote 22] for fiscal year 2003--the 
most recent year for which data were readily available for most of the 
programs during our review. Since we began our review in late 2003, 
fiscal year 2003 was the most complete year for which data were readily 
available. 

It was often difficult to quantify the resources associated with energy-
related aspects of various programs because agencies could not provide 
specific estimates. We used the following method to arrive at an 
estimate of the magnitude of federal energy resources for fiscal year 
2003--the most recently completed fiscal year readily available--and 
for fiscal year 2000.[Footnote 23] For many programs, we obtained 
budget request, budget authority, outlay, and obligation information 
for programs from agency officials and documents to the extent that 
these numbers were available. To ensure the accuracy of the financial 
information provided by the agencies, we attempted to obtain 
documentation and agency verification, but we could not independently 
verify the estimates for energy-related programs or activities. In 
obtaining information on resources associated with most programs, we 
were able to obtain actual budget authority or estimated budget 
authority from agency officials. However, some programs do not have 
readily available estimates of budget authority available for their 
energy-related activities because they are part of a larger 
appropriation that addresses both energy-related and nonenergy-related 
activities. For such programs, agencies had to estimate the portion of 
budget authority associated with the energy-related program activity. 
In these cases, we asked knowledgeable agency officials to estimate the 
amount of resources dedicated to the energy-related activities. In some 
cases, agencies provided estimates of energy-related outlays or 
obligations. For the following agencies, in consultation with agency 
officials, we used these agency outlay or obligation estimates as 
estimates for budget authority: State, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
NSF, USAID, USTDA, and some USDA, DOT, and EPA programs. On the basis 
of our examination of the supporting information, we believe that the 
estimates of budget authority for federal energy-related programs 
gathered are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report, 
which is to provide the best available estimate of federal resources 
for energy-related programs. 

In addition to obtaining budget authority estimates for energy-related 
programs, we also obtained outlay equivalent estimates for energy-
related income tax preferences--federal income tax provisions that 
provide preferential tax treatment related to energy supply and use. 
Revenue losses resulting from these tax preferences--also called tax 
expenditures--may, in effect, be viewed as spending channeled through 
the tax system. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 
requires that the budget include a list of tax expenditures.[Footnote 
24] Each year, revenue loss estimates for tax expenditures are prepared 
by Treasury and the Joint Committee on Taxation. Treasury also produces 
outlay equivalent estimates--the amount of budget outlays that would be 
required to provide the taxpayer with the same after-tax income as 
would be received through the tax expenditure. We used the outlay 
equivalent measure in quantifying the energy-related tax preferences 
because it allows the tax preference programs to be compared with 
federal outlay programs on a more even footing. While the aggregate 
value for energy-related tax preferences is useful for gauging their 
general magnitude, summing does not take into account interactions 
between individual provisions. In addition, tax preferences below $5 
million annually are not reported on Treasury's list and, therefore, 
are not included in this report. 

We focused on federal resources associated with key federal agencies 
that have direct responsibility for issues addressed in and for 
implementing the recommendations of the NEP report. We attempted to 
address other agencies as time allowed, but the inventory did not 
evaluate the efforts of every federal agency. Principally, in this 
review, we did not attempt to inventory DOD spending and 
activities.[Footnote 25] However, DOD is a large user of energy and 
engages in a wide range of activities that may impact the energy 
sector. For example, DOD installations have about 2,600 electric, 
water, wastewater, and natural gas utility systems valued at about $50 
billion. These systems include the equipment, fixtures, and structures 
used in the distribution of electric power and natural gas; the 
treatment and distribution of water; and the collection and treatment 
of wastewater. Because we did not evaluate DOD spending, or every 
federal agency that may have energy-related activities, this report 
reflects a significant, but minimum amount of resources associated with 
federal programs that may play a role in energy. 

In addition, although the federal government has a major impact on the 
energy industry through regulatory actions, this review did not attempt 
to inventory the federal regulatory actions that affect energy, but 
rather focused on federal energy-related programs and tax policies. 
Federal regulatory actions that impact energy have a cost to the 
industry but are offset by benefits accruing to the population at large 
or targeted groups. For example, in its report entitled Progress in 
Regulatory Reform: 2004 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of 
Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal 
Entities 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated the 
annual costs of all major federal rules implemented between fiscal 
years 1994 and 2003 at about $35 billion to $40 billion and annual 
benefits of these rules at between $63 billion to $169 billion. A large 
fraction of these costs and benefits may be related to energy in that 
(1) they have come about as the result of regulations to reduce public 
exposure to fine particulate matter, such as some emissions from 
burning fuels, or (2) they pertain to regulations promulgated by DOE, 
in part to address energy efficiency and renewable energy. In this 
report, we have primarily focused on direct federal programs and tax 
policies, rather than trying to assess the total economic impact of the 
federal government on the energy sector. However, the magnitude of the 
OMB estimates of the costs and benefits of regulation indicates that 
the federal impact on energy issues may be greater than the sum of 
resources associated with direct programs and tax preferences. 

To review the status of federal efforts to implement the 
recommendations contained in the May 2001 NEP report, we reviewed 
publicly reported status information on the implementation of the NEP 
recommendations, focusing on DOE's most recent January 2005 report on 
the status of the 106[Footnote 26] NEP recommendations. We discussed 
efforts to monitor and report on the status of these recommendations 
with DOE's Office of National Energy Policy and other federal agencies 
involved in energy-related efforts. We also discussed the energy-
related programs with the appropriate agency personnel and, when 
possible, determined whether and how the programs were related to the 
NEP report recommendations. 

To determine the extent to which resources associated with federal 
energy-related efforts have changed since the release of the NEP 
report, we compared fiscal year 2000 (shortly before the NEP report) 
federal programs and budget authority estimates with fiscal year 2003 
programs and budget authority estimates. However, we were not able to 
identify estimates of budget authority for every program for both 
fiscal years 2000 and 2003. Thus, we compared only those programs for 
which we could identify an estimate for both years. As a result, three 
FERC programs that were included in the inventory of fiscal year 2003 
programs and resources were not included in the fiscal years 2000 to 
2003 comparison. In addition, we compared outlay equivalents for energy-
related tax preferences between fiscal years 2000 and 2003. We were 
able to obtain outlay equivalent estimates for all 11 energy-related 
tax preferences for both years as well as projections for fiscal year 
2005. Finally, we compared fiscal years 2000, 2003, and 2005 
Presidential budget requests for those major energy-related programs 
that have specific budget requests. However, many of the smaller 
programs we identified in our inventory do not have specific budget 
requests. Thus, those programs are not included in the comparison of 
energy-related budget requests and cannot be compared with the 
estimates of budget authority provided for all energy-related programs 
we identified in our inventory. 

Finally, due to the constraints of developing an inventory of federal 
energy-related efforts and associated resources within the review time 
frame, we did not assess the changes within the objectives of the 
individual program activities within our inventory. Instead, we 
compared the resources and budget requests associated with federal 
energy-related efforts in the eight major activity areas. We conducted 
our review between December 2003 and May 2005 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section]

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

Table 14: Inventory of Federal Energy Programs, by Activity and Agency 
Program, Including Fiscal Year 2003 Estimated Budget Authority: 

Dollars in actual amounts. 

Energy activity: Energy supply: 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs I; 
Estimated budget authority: $0. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs II; 
Estimated budget authority: $1,656,000. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs III; 
Estimated budget authority: $1,373,000. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Program: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 
Bioenergy and Energy Related Programs IV; 
Estimated budget authority: $884,000. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Program: Farm Service Agency: Commodity Credit Corporation's Bioenergy 
Program; 
Estimated budget authority: $150,000,000. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Program: Forest Service Research and Development: Bioenergy, Energy 
Efficiency, and Conservation Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $2,400,000. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Program: Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New 
Uses: 3; 
Estimated budget authority: $1,000,000. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Program: Office of Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New 
Uses: 2; 
Estimated budget authority: $1,000,000. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Program: Rural Development Business Programs: Renewable Energy and 
Energy Efficiency; 
Estimated budget authority: $23,000,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Clean Coal Technology; 
Estimated budget authority: ($47,000,000). 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Energy Supply: Biomass and biorefinery systems research and 
development (R&D); 
Estimated budget authority: $84,898,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Energy Supply: Departmental energy management program; 
Estimated budget authority: $1,445,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Energy Supply: Facilities and Infrastructure; 
Estimated budget authority: $5,297,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Energy Supply: Geothermal technology; 
Estimated budget authority: $28,390,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Energy Supply: Hydrogen technology; 
Estimated budget authority: $38,113,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Energy Supply: Hydropower; 
Estimated budget authority: $5,016,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Energy Supply: Intergovernmental activities; 
Estimated budget authority: $14,449,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Energy Supply: Program direction; 
Estimated budget authority: $12,615,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Energy Supply: Renewable Program Support; 
Estimated budget authority: $0. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Energy Supply: Solar energy; 
Estimated budget authority: $82,330,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Energy Supply: Wind energy; 
Estimated budget authority: $41,640,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Energy Supply: Zero energy buildings; 
Estimated budget authority: $7,572,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: National Academy of Sciences Program 
Review; 
Estimated budget authority: $497,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Plant and Capital Projects; 
Estimated budget authority: $6,954,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Advanced metallurgical research; 
Estimated budget authority: $5,961,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Black Liquor; 
Estimated budget authority: $0. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Coal and other power systems; 
Estimated budget authority: $410,340,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Cooperative research and development; 
Estimated budget authority: $8,186,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Energy efficiency science initiative; 
Estimated budget authority: $497,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Import/export authorization; 
Estimated budget authority: $2,981,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Natural gas technologies; 
Estimated budget authority: $47,013,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Petroleum Oil technology; 
Estimated budget authority: $42,025,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Program direction and management support; 
Estimated budget authority: $87,229,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves; 
Estimated budget authority: $17,715,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Nuclear Energy R&D; 
Estimated budget authority: $114,441,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Science: Fusion energy sciences program; 
Estimated budget authority: $240,695,000. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: Bureau of Indian Affairs: Operation of Indian Programs; 
Estimated budget authority: $3,300,000. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Coal Management; 
Estimated budget authority: $9,526,000. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: BLM: Oil and Gas Management; 
Estimated budget authority: $86,100,000. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: BLM: Workforce/Organizational Support; 
Estimated budget authority: $23,000,000. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: Minerals Management Service (MMS): Indian Trust 
Responsibility; 
Estimated budget authority: $22,000,000. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: MMS: Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management; 
Estimated budget authority: $239,430,000. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: Office of Surface Mining (OSM): Abandoned Mine Reclamation 
Fund; 
Estimated budget authority: $2,153,000. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: OSM: Regulation and Technology; 
Estimated budget authority: $104,209,000. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: U.S. Geological Survey: Energy Resource Program; 
Estimated budget authority: $23,705,000. 

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; 
Program: Office of Air and Radiation (OAR): New Source Review; 
Estimated budget authority: $1,200,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Biological Sciences: Hydrogen and Fusion: Basic Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $920,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Biological Sciences: Renewable Energy: Basic Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $87,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Education and Human Resources: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic 
Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $0. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $200,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Engineering Directorate: Hydrogen and Fusion/Applied Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $790,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Engineering Directorate: Other Energy/Basic Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $930,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Engineering Directorate: Renewable Energy/Applied Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $1,310,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Renewable Energy/Basic 
Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $30,540,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Hydrogen and Fusion/Basic 
Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $7,330,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering: Hydrogen and 
Fusion/Basic Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $70,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering: Renewable 
Energy/Basic Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $2,000,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Renewable Energy/Basic 
Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $60,000. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Program: International Nuclear Safety Support; 
Estimated budget authority: $8,026,645. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Program: Nuclear Materials Safety: Fuel Facilities Licensing and 
Inspection; 
Estimated budget authority: $21,420,704. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: New Reactor Licensing; 
Estimated budget authority: $26,464,865. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Inspection and Performance 
Assessment; 
Estimated budget authority: $147,123,812. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor License Renewal; 
Estimated budget authority: $22,870,187. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Licensing; 
Estimated budget authority: $95,316,734. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Program: Nuclear Reactor Safety: Reactor Safety Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $70,870,929. 

Subtotal; 
Estimated budget authority: $2,391,565,876. 

Energy Activity: Energy's impact on the environment and health. 

Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development; 
Program: Energy Programs, Agency-wide; 
Estimated budget authority: $91,900,000. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Program: Forest Service R&D: Global Change Research/Climate Change 
Science Program/Climate Change Technology Program; 
Estimated budget authority: $18,778,000. 

Agency: Department of Commerce; 
Program: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): 
National Marine Fisheries Habitat; 
Estimated budget authority: $103,000. 

Agency: Department of Commerce; 
Program: NOAA: National Marine Fisheries Service Consultations; 
Estimated budget authority: $2,539,000. 

Agency: Department of Commerce; 
Program: NOAA: National Weather Service; 
Estimated budget authority: $5,962,000. 

Agency: Department of Commerce; 
Program: NOAA: Ocean and Coastal Resource Management; 
Estimated budget authority: $341,000. 

Agency: Department of Commerce; 
Program: NOAA: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $1,987,000. 

Agency: Department of Commerce; 
Program: NOAA: Office of Response and Restoration; 
Estimated budget authority: $5,700,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Civilian Radioactive Waste; 
Estimated budget authority: $457,010,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Fossil Energy R&D: Environmental restoration; 
Estimated budget authority: $9,652,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Non-Defense Environmental Services; 
Estimated budget authority: $161,852,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion; 
Estimated budget authority: $156,129,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Science: Biological and environmental research; 
Estimated budget authority: $494,360,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund; 
Estimated budget authority: $320,563,000. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: Fish and Wildlife Service: Resource Management; 
Estimated budget authority: $13,148,000. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: MMS: Oil Spill Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $6,000,000. 

Agency: Department of State; 
Program: State: Climate Change and Sustainable Development; 
Estimated budget authority: $1,440,000. 

Agency: Department of Transportation; 
Program: Office of the Secretary of Transportation: National Climate 
Change Technology; 
Estimated budget authority: $650,000. 

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; 
Program: OAR: Boutique Fuels; 
Estimated budget authority: $400,000. 

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; 
Program: OAR: Climate Change Programs/Technological Advances (Clean Car 
Program); 
Estimated budget authority: $21,700,000. 

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; 
Program: OAR: Multi-pollutant Legislation, Clear Skies Legislation; 
Estimated budget authority: $2,100,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering: Energy 
Efficiency/Basic Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $41,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Energy Efficiency/Basic 
Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $60,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Social, Behavioral, Economic Sciences: Other Energy/Basic 
Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $10,000. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety: Environmental Protection and Low Level 
Waste Management; 
Estimated budget authority: $4,563,957. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety: High Level Waste Regulation; 
Estimated budget authority: $30,457,514. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety: Regulation of Decommissioning; 
Estimated budget authority: $21,628,121. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Program: Nuclear Waste Safety: Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation 
Licensing and Inspection; 
Estimated budget authority: $27,021,284. 

Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 
Program: Regulatory Program; 
Estimated budget authority: $9,696,726. 

Subtotal; 
Estimated budget authority: $1,865,792,602. 

Energy Activity: Low-income energy consumer assistance. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Energy Conservation: Weatherization; 
Estimated budget authority: $223,537,000. 

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; 
Program: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program; 
Estimated budget authority: $1,988,300,000. 

Subtotal; 
Estimated budget authority: $2,211,837,000. 

Energy Activity: Basic energy science research. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Science: Advanced scientific computing research; 
Estimated budget authority: $163,185,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Science: Basic energy sciences; 
Estimated budget authority: $1,001,941,000. 

Subtotal; 
Estimated budget authority: $1,165,126,000. 

Energy Activity: Energy delivery infrastructure. 

Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development; 
Program: Energy Activities in Afghanistan; 
Estimated budget authority: $3,100,000. 

Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development; 
Program: Energy Activities in Iraq; 
Estimated budget authority: $558,000,000. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Program: Electric Transmission and Distribution; 
Estimated budget authority: $88,384,000. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: BLM: Lands and Realty Management; 
Estimated budget authority: $27,200,000. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: BLM: Oregon and California Grant Lands; 
Estimated budget authority: $2,300,000. 

Agency: Department of the Interior; 
Program: BLM: Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeitures; 
Estimated budget authority: $7,900,000. 

Agency: Department of Transportation; 
Program: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration: 
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety; 
Estimated budget authority: $63,261,000. 

Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); 
Program: FERC: Energy Infrastructure; 
Estimated budget authority: $119,241,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Education and Human Resources: Superconductivity/Basic 
Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $0. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Engineering Directorate: Superconductivity/Applied Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $110,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Engineering Directorate: Superconductivity/Basic Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $340,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Superconductivity/Basic 
Research; 
Estimated budget authority: $12,130,000. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Program: Office of International Science and Engineering: 
Superconductivity/Basic Research; 
Estimated budget autho