This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-842 
entitled 'Batteries and Energy Storage: Federal Initiatives Supported 
Similar Technologies and Goals but Had Key Differences' which was 
released on October 1, 2012. 

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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

August 2012: 

Batteries and Energy Storage: 

Federal Initiatives Supported Similar Technologies and Goals but Had 
Key Differences: 

GAO-12-842: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-842, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Federal interest in batteries and other energy storage technologies 
has increased in recent years to help address energy, defense, and 
space exploration challenges. The federal government has devoted 
substantial resources to support such technologies for the electric 
grid, electric vehicles, warfighting, and other uses. 

GAO was asked to (1) identify the scope and key characteristics of 
federal battery and energy storage initiatives; (2) determine the 
extent to which there is potential fragmentation, overlap, or 
duplication, if any, among these initiatives; and (3) determine the 
extent to which agencies coordinate these initiatives. GAO focused on 
fiscal years 2009 through 2012 because DOE made large investments in 
these technologies during these years. GAO surveyed initiatives 
identified in six agencies: DOE, DOD, NASA, NSF, EPA, and NIST. GAO 
included questions about the following key characteristics: funding 
obligations, technologies, uses, technology advancement activities, 
goals, eligible funding recipients, and funding mechanisms. GAO 
analyzed survey responses and interviewed agency officials to gather 
more information. GAO examined external coordination for all agencies 
and internal coordination in DOE and DOD because they had the largest 
obligations of the agencies GAO reviewed. 

What GAO Found: 

GAO identified 39 battery and energy storage initiatives with a 
variety of key characteristics that were implemented across six 
agencies: the Departments of Energy (DOE) and Defense (DOD), the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National 
Science Foundation (NSF), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). These 
initiatives obligated over $1.3 billion from fiscal years 2009 through 
2012. Initiatives supported a variety of technologies, uses, 
advancement activities, and goals. Several types of recipients were 
eligible for funding, such as private industry, universities, and 
federal labs, through contracts, grants, and other mechanisms. GAO 
found that initiatives were fragmented and had overlapping 
characteristics but did not find clear evidence of duplication. 
Initiatives were fragmented because they were involved in the same 
broad area of national need: to advance batteries and other energy 
storage technologies. Thirty initiatives had overlapping 
characteristics in that they supported similar technologies, uses, 
advancement activities, and goals. These initiatives also had similar 
types of eligible funding recipients. Although fragmented and 
overlapping initiatives create the risk of potential unnecessary 
duplication, initiatives supported agency-specific missions and 
strategic priorities that differentiated their efforts. In addition, 
agency officials involved with the initiatives reported differences in 
the technologies needed for specific uses, specific goals, and the 
types of recipients eligible for assistance. Agencies reported several 
activities to coordinate with each other on their battery and energy 
storage initiatives, including initiatives that were overlapping. 
Activities were consistent with practices that GAO has previously 
reported can help enhance coordination such as agreeing on roles and 
responsibilities. In addition, DOE has taken steps to internally 
coordinate its battery and energy storage initiatives through 
activities that, among other things, defined common technology goals. 
DOD has also taken actions to improve its coordination of battery and 
energy storage initiatives based on a recommendation in a prior GAO 
report. 

Table: Agency Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives and Funding 
Obligations, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012: 

Agency: DOE; 
Number of initiatives: 11; 
Funding obligations[A]: $851,994,808[B]. 

Agency: DOD; 
Number of initiatives: 14; 
Funding obligations[A]: $430,274,229[C]. 

Agency: NASA; 
Number of initiatives: 8; 
Funding obligations[A]: $20,811,374[C]. 

Agency: NSF; 
Number of initiatives: 4; 
Funding obligations[A]: $8,582,868. 

Agency: EPA; 
Number of initiatives: 1; 
Funding obligations[A]: $3,258,029. 

Agency: NIST; 
Number of initiatives: 1; 
Funding obligations[A]: $1,375,000[C]. 

Total: 
Number of initiatives: 39; 
Funding obligations[A]: $$1,316,296,308. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses. 

[] All funding obligations for fiscal year 2012 are estimated. 

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

[C] Includes estimates for some obligations for fiscal years 2009 
through 2011. 

[End of table] 

What GAO Recommends: 

This report contains no recommendations. In response to the draft 
report, DOE, DOD, NASA, and NSF provided technical comments, which GAO 
incorporated as appropriate. The other agencies had no comments. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-842]. For more 
information, contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Six Agencies Supported Thirty-Nine Battery and Energy Storage 
Initiatives with a Variety of Key Characteristics: 

Agencies' Initiatives Were Fragmented and Had Overlapping 
Characteristics but Did Not Demonstrate Clear Instances of Duplication: 

Agencies Reported Coordinating Their Initiatives with Each Other and 
Internally through Several Activities: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Batteries and Other Energy Storage Technologies: 

Appendix III: Federal Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives: 

Appendix IV: Selected Questionnaire Responses for Federal Battery and 
Energy Storage Technology Initiatives: 

Appendix V: GAO's Questionnaire for Federal Agencies with Battery and 
Energy Storage Initiatives: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Agency Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives and Funding 
Obligations, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012: 

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

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

Table 4: Number of Initiatives Supporting Each Technology Advancement 
Activity: 

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

Table 6: Number of Initiatives Using Each Funding Mechanism: 

Table 7: Batteries and Other Energy Storage Technologies: 

Table 8: Department of Energy Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives 
and Their Total Funding Obligations for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012: 

Table 9: Department of Defense Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives 
and Their Total Funding Obligations for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012: 

Table 10: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Battery and 
Energy Storage Initiatives and Their Total Funding Obligations for 
Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012: 

Table 11: National Science Foundation Battery and Energy Storage 
Initiatives and Their Total Funding Obligations for Fiscal Years 2009 
through 2012: 

Table 12: Environmental Protection Agency Battery and Energy Storage 
Initiatives and Their Total Funding Obligations for Fiscal Years 2009 
through 2012: 

Table 13: National Institute of Standards and Technology Battery and 
Energy Storage Initiatives and Their Total Funding Obligations for 
Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012: 

Table 14: Department of Energy Selected Questionnaire Responses for 
Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives: 

Table 15: Department of Defense Selected Questionnaire Responses for 
Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives: 

Table 16: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Selected 
Questionnaire Responses for Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives: 

Table 17: National Science Foundation Selected Questionnaire Responses 
for Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives: 

Table 18: Environmental Protection Agency Selected Questionnaire 
Responses for Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives: 

Table 19: National Institute of Standards and Technology Selected 
Questionnaire Responses for Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives: 

Table 20: Total for All Agencies--Selected Questionnaire Responses for 
Federal Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives: 

Abbreviations: 

ARPA-E: Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy: 

ATVM: Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing: 

AVPTA: Advanced Vehicle Power Technology Alliance: 

BEEST: Batteries for Electrical Energy Storage in Transportation: 

BES: Office of Basic Energy Sciences: 

CAES: compressed air energy storage: 

COTS: commercial-off-the-shelf: 

CRS: Congressional Research Service: 

CWG: Chemical Working Group: 

DARPA: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

EERE: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

EPCOI: Energy and Power Community of Interest: 

ESTCP: Environmental Security Technology Certification Program: 

GRIDS: Grid-Scale Rampable Intermittent Dispatchable Storage: 

LPO: Loan Program Office: 

MOU: memorandum of understanding: 

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology: 

NSF: National Science Foundation: 

OE: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability: 

OEPP: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational 
Energy Plans and Programs: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OVT: Office of Vehicle Technologies: 

PASTA: Panel of Senior Technical Advisors: 

QTR: Quadrennial Technology Review: 

Recovery Act: 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: 

TARDEC: Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center: 

Treasury: Department of the Treasury: 

TRL: technology readiness level: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

August 30, 2012: 

The Honorable Ralph Hall:
Chairman:
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Andy Harris:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment:
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: 
House of Representatives: 

Federal interest in batteries and other energy storage technologies 
has increased in recent years to help address key energy, defense, and 
space exploration challenges. According to the Department of Energy 
(DOE), enhancing these technologies contributes to more flexible and 
efficient control of the nation's existing electric infrastructure, or 
grid (e.g., electricity networks including power lines and customer 
meters). For example, these technologies have the potential to 
facilitate greater use of intermittent renewable energy sources, such 
as wind and solar energy, on the grid. In addition, according to DOE, 
batteries are also critical to advancing electric vehicles that are 
commercially viable to help reduce U.S. oil consumption.[Footnote 1] 
To address these challenges, DOE has devoted substantial resources in 
recent years to initiatives to support batteries and other energy 
storage technologies. For example, DOE awarded $185 million in funds 
made available under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
(Recovery Act) to 16 projects that supported demonstrations of 
batteries and other energy storage technologies on the electric grid. 
In addition, we reported in December 2010 that the Department of 
Defense (DOD) has provided significant support for batteries and other 
energy storage technologies in recent years because virtually all DOD 
weapon systems and equipment rely on these technologies.[Footnote 2] 
For example, we reported that DOD invested about $260 million in 
science and technology efforts to develop and improve batteries from 
fiscal years 2006 through 2010.[Footnote 3] The National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration (NASA) also relies on and has invested in 
these technologies to help support space exploration missions because 
space craft, space stations, and astronaut space suits require power 
that can be supplied remotely. Several other federal agencies--
including the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of 
Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)--have 
also invested in initiatives to support research and development of 
these technologies. 

The existence of these initiatives at multiple agencies has raised 
questions about the potential for duplication, which in this context 
occurs when multiple initiatives support the same technology 
advancement activities for the same technologies and uses, provide 
funding to the same recipients using the same funding mechanisms, and 
have the same goals. As we previously reported, unnecessary 
duplication can potentially result from fragmentation and overlap 
among government programs.[Footnote 4] Fragmentation occurs when more 
than one federal agency (or more than one organization within an 
agency) is involved in the same broad area of national need. For 
purposes of this report, overlap occurs when multiple initiatives 
support similar technologies, uses, technology advancement activities, 
and funding recipients, and have similar goals. We have previously 
reported that coordination across programs may help address 
fragmentation, overlap, and duplication.[Footnote 5] In this report, 
we define coordination as any joint activity by two or more 
organizations that is intended to produce more public value than could 
be produced when the organizations act alone. 

In this context, you asked us to review federal initiatives supporting 
batteries and other energy storage technologies--which we termed 
"federal battery and energy storage initiatives." Our objectives were 
to (1) identify the scope and key characteristics of federal battery 
and energy storage initiatives; (2) determine the extent to which 
there is potential fragmentation, overlap, or duplication of these 
initiatives, if any; and (3) determine the extent to which agencies 
coordinate their battery and energy storage initiatives. 

To address these three objectives, we focused our review on 
rechargeable batteries[Footnote 6] and certain other energy storage 
technologies; we excluded nonrechargeable batteries,[Footnote 7] fuel 
cells, and nuclear energy storage technologies. We also focused on 
initiatives active[Footnote 8] during fiscal years 2009 through 2012 
because, during these years, DOE offices made large investments in 
these technologies, including with funds made available under the 
Recovery Act. For example, DOE's Advanced Research Projects Agency-
Energy (ARPA-E) supported about $97 million in battery and energy 
storage technologies during fiscal years 2010 and 2011 with funding 
made available under the Recovery Act. We defined an initiative as a 
group of agency activities serving a similar purpose or function, such 
as a program or mission area. We included initiatives that either 
exclusively supported battery and energy storage technology projects 
or did so as part of a broader effort that also supported other types 
of projects.[Footnote 9] For example, we included DOE's Title XVII 
Loan Guarantee Program, which supported loans to commercial-scale 
renewable energy projects, including battery, solar generation, wind 
generation, and geothermal generation projects. 

* To identify the scope and key characteristics of federal battery and 
energy storage initiatives, we first identified potentially relevant 
agencies and initiatives by reviewing two previous GAO reports that 
collected information on some federal battery and energy storage 
initiatives active in fiscal year 2010.[Footnote 10] In addition, we 
searched key federal databases, and interviewed agency officials. We 
limited our scope to initiatives that supported basic science, applied 
research, demonstrations, and commercialization activities for 
batteries and other energy storage technologies. Because initiatives 
often supported more than one type of technology advancement activity, 
some of the initiatives included in this report may also support 
deployment activities--efforts to facilitate or achieve widespread use 
of technologies either in the commercial market or for federal 
agencies' use. However, in identifying agencies and initiatives, we 
excluded initiatives that focused solely on deployment activities and 
initiatives involving agency-owned assets such as fleets or 
facilities. For example, we did not include the Department of the 
Treasury (Treasury) and several federal tax credits it administered 
that indirectly supported deployment of batteries and other energy 
storage technologies during fiscal years 2009 through 2012. Treasury 
officials told us that data were generally not available on the 
estimated revenue loss directly associated with tax credits for these 
technologies because available data do not break out qualifying 
investments in fine enough detail to determine which part may have 
been for qualifying battery and energy storage devices. We confirmed a 
final list of six agencies and 39 initiatives. We then conducted a 
survey of agency officials involved in each of the 39 initiatives and 
included questions about the following key characteristics: funding 
obligations; goals and performance measures for batteries and other 
energy storage technologies; types of technologies, uses, and 
advancement activities supported; types of eligible funding recipients 
and funding mechanisms used to provide assistance; and coordination 
activities. Some officials reported that funding obligations for 
fiscal years 2009 through 2011 were estimated because battery and 
energy storage projects were portions of larger projects, or broader 
initiatives, and were not specifically tracked. In addition, all 
funding obligations reported for fiscal year 2012 were estimated. We 
received survey responses from all 39 initiatives and therefore had a 
response rate of 100 percent. According to an official from DOE's 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's (EERE) Office of 
Vehicle Technologies (OVT), since the survey focused on research and 
development activities, they did not include in their survey response 
$1.5 billion in funds made available under the Recovery Act. With 
these funds DOE made awards to 20 projects to support the 
establishment of advanced battery manufacturing and battery recycling 
facilities in the U.S. DOE officials provided this information 
separately in OVT's annual energy storage research progress reports. 
[Footnote 11] 

* To determine the extent of potential fragmentation, overlap, or 
duplication, if any, we analyzed survey responses for the initiatives 
to identify similarities and differences in their key characteristics. 
We then interviewed agency officials to gather more information to 
further evaluate similarities and differences. 

* To determine the extent to which agencies coordinated their 
initiatives, we used survey responses and interviews to identify 
interagency coordination activities across the six agencies. We also 
examined internal coordination in DOE and DOD of initiatives within 
those agencies because they had the largest funding obligations among 
the agencies we reviewed. For DOD we followed up on actions, if any, 
DOD took to address recommendations we made in 2010. We drew on past 
GAO work related to interagency coordination.[Footnote 12] 

We provide a more in-depth discussion of our questionnaire and methods 
in appendix I. For a copy of our questionnaire, see appendix V. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to August 2012 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

Batteries and other energy storage technologies include numerous 
devices that can store energy in one form--such as chemical, 
mechanical, electrostatic, or thermal energy--and can transform the 
energy to generate electrical power at a later time. For example, 
batteries store energy in chemical form and convert it to electrical 
energy through electrochemical processes. Other types of energy 
storage technologies include capacitors and flywheels. Capacitors 
store energy in electrostatic form and release the energy as 
electrical power. Flywheels store energy in mechanical form using a 
spinning wheel, or tube, and then transform the energy to electrical 
power using the spinning wheel, or tube, to drive a generator. 
Appendix II provides descriptions of technologies identified during 
our review. 

Batteries and other energy storage technologies can support diverse 
uses, such as the following: 

* Personal-use electronics power. Internal power for small or mobile 
electronic devices such as laptop computers and cell phones. 

* Stationary power storage. Energy storage for stationary electricity 
generation and distribution systems such as the national electric 
grid, or stand-alone systems for military installations. 

* Vehicle propulsion. Power for propulsion of vehicles that travel on 
the ground, in the air, in and on water, or in space. 

* Auxiliary power for vehicles. Power for uses other than propulsion 
such as providing electricity for navigation, communication, and other 
equipment. 

* Weapon systems power. Power for weapons and their components 
necessary for their operation, such as targeting and guidance devices. 

Batteries and other energy storage technologies are in various stages 
of technology advancement. For example, lithium-ion batteries are a 
popular type of battery used for powering most small or mobile 
consumer electronics. Recently, lithium-ion batteries are also being 
used in electric grids and electric vehicles because, among other 
factors, they are lightweight and have high energy and power densities 
compared with other commercially available batteries.[Footnote 13] 
However, research efforts on lithium-ion batteries for these other 
uses aim to, among other things, improve their safety and reduce their 
cost. For example, DOE supports research on lithium-ion batteries used 
in electric vehicles that focuses on developing new approaches for 
managing the temperature ranges in which the batteries can operate to 
help improve their safety. 

Federal agencies support innovation of battery and energy storage 
technologies through a spectrum of technology advancement activities. 
For purposes of this report, we call these activities basic research, 
applied research, demonstrations, commercialization, and deployment 
activities and define these terms as follows:[Footnote 14] 

* Basic research includes efforts to explore and define scientific or 
engineering concepts, or is conducted to investigate the nature of a 
subject without targeting any specific technology. 

* Applied research includes efforts to develop new scientific or 
engineering knowledge to create new and improved technologies. 

* Demonstrations include efforts to operate new or improved 
technologies to collect information on their performance and assess 
readiness for widespread use. 

* Commercialization includes efforts to bridge the gap between 
research and demonstration activities, and venture capital funding and 
marketing activities, through transitioning technologies to commercial 
applications. 

* Deployment activities include efforts to facilitate or achieve 
widespread use of technologies either in the commercial market or for 
federal agencies' use. 

Federal agencies pursue technology advancement activities through the 
direct work of agency staff (i.e., in-house) or by providing funding 
assistance to external recipients in government laboratories, 
universities, industry, and nonprofit organizations. Government 
laboratories include facilities within a federal agency such as the 
Army Research Laboratory and Air Force Research Laboratory. Such 
laboratories also include federally funded research and development 
centers sponsored by federal agencies, such as DOE's national 
laboratories, that are not federal entities but that were originally 
established by federal authority to address national scientific 
research needs. 

Six Agencies Supported Thirty-Nine Battery and Energy Storage 
Initiatives with a Variety of Key Characteristics: 

We identified 39 battery and energy storage initiatives across six 
agencies that supported battery and energy storage technologies. In 
total, these initiatives obligated over $1.3 billion during fiscal 
years 2009 through 2012 to support a variety of goals, technologies, 
uses, and advancement activities. They also provided funding to many 
types of recipients, such as federal labs and private industry, 
through a number of different funding mechanisms. We provide 
descriptions of each of these initiatives in appendix III and selected 
survey responses for each initiative in appendix IV. 

Agencies Involved, Initiatives, Funds Obligated, and Goals: 

We identified 39 initiatives--implemented by six agencies--that 
supported batteries and other energy storage technologies to some 
degree.[Footnote 15] As shown in table 1, over 80 percent of these 
initiatives (33 of 39) were implemented by three agencies: DOE (11), 
DOD (14), and NASA (8). Other initiatives were implemented by NSF, 
EPA, and NIST. Twenty-six initiatives were active during all four 
fiscal years we examined--2009 through 2012--and three initiatives 
were new in fiscal year 2012. 

Overall, as shown in table 1, the six agencies reported that they 
obligated over $1.3 billion during fiscal years 2009 through 2012 to 
support these initiatives, according to our analysis of survey 
responses. Obligations for these initiatives rose from about $246 
million in fiscal year 2009 to about $311 million in fiscal year 2012. 
DOE and DOD had the largest obligations among the six agencies. 

* DOE obligated almost $852 million over the period for its 11 
initiatives. The largest DOE initiatives were the OVT's Vehicle 
Technologies Energy Storage Research and Development initiative, which 
reported obligating $323 million from fiscal year 2009 through 
2012;[Footnote 16] and the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability's (OE) Energy Storage Program, which reported obligating 
$241 million from fiscal year 2009 through 2012, including $185 
million in obligations from funding made available under the Recovery 
Act. DOE's total obligations also included about $30 million in credit 
subsidy costs obligated by the Loan Program Office's (LPO) Advanced 
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program to support about 
$520 million in loans that helped establish two electric vehicle 
battery manufacturing facilities, as well as about $11 million in 
credit subsidy costs obligated by the Title XVII Loan Guarantee 
Program to guarantee about $76 million in loans for battery and energy 
storage technology projects.[Footnote 17] Credit subsidy costs are the 
government's estimated net long-term cost, in present value terms, of 
the loans.[Footnote 18] 

* DOD reported obligating about $430 million for its 14 initiatives. 
The DOD initiative with the largest obligations was the Navy and 
Marine Corps Energy Storage System Integration initiative, which 
obligated $130 million from fiscal year 2009 through 2012. The next 
largest DOD initiatives were the Navy and Marine Corps Energy Storage 
Science and Technology initiative and the Army Energy Storage for Air 
and Ground Vehicles initiative, which both obligated about $80 million 
between fiscal year 2009 and 2012. 

Table 1: Agency Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives and Funding 
Obligations, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012: 

Agency: DOE; 
Number of initiatives: 11; 
Funding obligations: $851,994,808[A]. 

Agency: DOD; 
Number of initiatives: 14; 
Funding obligations: $430,274,229. 

Agency: NASA; 
Number of initiatives: 8; 
Funding obligations: $20,811,374. 

Agency: NSF; 
Number of initiatives: 4; 
Funding obligations: $8,582,868. 

Agency: EPA; 
Number of initiatives: 1; 
Funding obligations: $3,258,029. 

Agency: NIST; 
Number of initiatives: 1; 
Funding obligations: $1,375,000. 

Agency: Total; 
Number of initiatives: 39; 
Funding obligations: $1,316,296,308. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses. 

Note: Some of these totals included estimated obligations for fiscal 
years 2009 through 2011. All obligations for fiscal year 2012 were 
estimated by agencies. 

[A] In addition to these obligations, DOE supported about $596 million 
in federal loans for battery and energy storage technology projects. 

[End of table] 

Agencies reported that 26 of the initiatives had goals directly 
related to advancing batteries and other energy storage technologies. 
For example, DOD's Army Energy Storage for the Soldier initiative 
aimed to achieve specific targets for increasing the energy density 
and reducing the weight of devices that soldiers carry. The other 
initiatives that supported batteries and other energy storage 
technologies did not have goals directly related to advancement of 
these technologies, according to their responses. For example, seven 
initiatives--from DOE, DOD, and NSF--told us that they were focused on 
basic science research. Five other initiatives reported that they 
supported batteries and other energy storage technologies as part of a 
broader mission and, therefore, their goals were not specifically 
related to advancement of these technologies. For example, DOE's ATVM 
Loan Program reported that its mission was to provide loans to 
companies making cars and components in U.S. factories that increase 
fuel economy at least 25 percent above the fuel economy levels for 
2005. Accordingly, the program provided loans to two companies to 
manufacture battery packs for electric cars. This program also 
provided loans for a variety of other projects, such as upgrading 
factories and improving vehicle fuel efficiency for vehicles powered 
by internal combustion engines.[Footnote 19] 

The 26 initiatives that agency officials reported tracked goals 
directly related to advancing batteries and other energy storage 
technologies reported using various technical performance and cost 
targets. For example, DOE's OE Energy Storage Program established a 
number of technical performance targets related to improving the cost, 
cycle life, and energy efficiency of batteries; flywheels; compressed 
air energy storage; and other technologies for providing stationary 
storage on the electric grid. NASA's Flywheel Energy Storage and 
Momentum Control initiative also established technical performance 
targets to develop a flywheel that can discharge the same amount of 
energy for 3 hours as the best field-deployed battery systems. In 
addition, DOD's Army Energy Storage for the Soldier initiative set a 
cost target to produce a battery that matches the contour of a 
soldier's body armor and that costs less than $400. 

Technologies, Uses, and Technology Advancement Activities: 

As shown in table 2, agencies reported that their initiatives 
supported more than 10 technologies, with most initiatives supporting 
two or more technologies. Specifically, 21 of the 39 initiatives 
supported more than one kind of battery or other energy storage 
technology, and initiatives supported on average two technologies. 
Lithium-ion batteries were the most commonly supported technology 
among initiatives. Many initiatives also reported that they supported 
other types of batteries, such as metal-air batteries, lithium-metal 
batteries, and other energy storage technologies, such as capacitors, 
flywheels, and compressed air energy storage (CAES). Appendix II 
provides descriptions of batteries and other energy storage 
technologies identified in this review. 

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

Technology: Lithium-ion batteries; 
Number of initiatives: 28. 

Technology: Metal-air batteries; 
Number of initiatives: 19. 

Technology: Capacitors; 
Number of initiatives: 17. 

Technology: Lithium-metal batteries; 
Number of initiatives: 16. 

Technology: Basic energy storage research; 
Number of initiatives: 14. 

Technology: Advanced lead-acid batteries; 
Number of initiatives: 11. 

Technology: Redox flow batteries; 
Number of initiatives: 9. 

Technology: Sodium batteries; 
Number of initiatives: 9. 

Technology: CAES; 
Number of initiatives: 4. 

Technology: Flywheels; 
Number of initiatives: 4. 

Technology: Other[A]; 
Number of initiatives: 15. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses. 

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

[A] According to questionnaire responses, other technologies supported 
by initiatives included, for example, hydraulic accumulators, 
superconducting magnetic energy storage, solar thermal energy storage, 
and other types of flow batteries such as zinc-bromide flow batteries. 

[End of table] 

Agencies reported that 32 of the 39 initiatives supported specific 
technology uses. Of these 32 initiatives, 24 reported that they 
supported more than one technology use category; on average, 
initiatives supported two technology use categories. As shown in table 
3, the largest number of initiatives focused on ground-based vehicle 
propulsion, such as for light-duty electric vehicles and space rovers. 
The next largest groups of initiatives focused on auxiliary power for 
vehicles, which is power for uses such as starting and stopping 
vehicles or supporting electronics in military tactical vehicles, as 
well as on stationary power storage, including large-scale systems 
such as the electric utility grid and small-scale systems such as 
microgrids providing power for forward operating bases.[Footnote 20] 

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

Technology uses: Ground-based vehicle propulsion; 
Number of initiatives: 16. 

Technology uses: Auxiliary power for vehicles; 
Number of initiatives: 14. 

Technology uses: Stationary power storage; 
Number of initiatives: 14. 

Technology uses: Propulsion for vehicles that are not ground-based 
(air, space, underwater); 
Number of initiatives: 12. 

Technology uses: Personal-use electronics power; 
Number of initiatives: 6. 

Technology uses: Weapon systems; 
Number of initiatives: 6. 

Technology uses: Other[A]; 
Number of initiatives: 8. 

Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire responses. 

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

[A] Other types of technology use--as marked in questionnaire 
responses--include, for example, space applications and low-power 
sensors for defense applications. 

[End of table] 

Agencies' initiatives supported one or more of the five categories of 
technology advancement activities. Specifically, for 28 of the 39 
initiatives, agency officials reported supporting more than one 
technology advancement activity. As shown in table 4, the most common 
type supported was applied research, followed by demonstrations, basic 
research, commercialization, and deployment activities. Agencies 
reported that initiatives that supported applied research focused on a 
broad range of research that included developing practical devices--
such as a battery for an electric vehicle--to meet specific needs, 
designing energy and power system integration and management 
approaches, and developing new or improved manufacturing processes. 
Agencies reported that initiatives that supported basic research 
generally targeted discovery and development of new energy storage 
materials and approaches for device architectures. 

Table 4: Number of Initiatives Supporting Each Technology Advancement 
Activity: 

Technology advancement activity: Basic research; 
Number of initiatives: 15. 

Technology advancement activity: Applied research; 
Number of initiatives: 27. 

Technology advancement activity: Demonstrations; 
Number of initiatives: 19. 

Technology advancement activity: Commercialization; 
Number of initiatives: 12. 

Technology advancement activity: Deployment[A]; 
Number of initiatives: 10. 

Technology advancement activity: Other[B]; 
Number of initiatives: 6. 

Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire responses. 

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

[A] Initiatives that were surveyed did not solely support deployment 
but rather did so along with other technology advancement activities. 
We report these deployment activities that initiatives identified as 
part of their initiatives but these do not encompass the entirety of 
federal deployment activities. 

[B] Other types of technology advancement activities--as marked in 
questionnaire responses--include, for example, developing testing 
procedures. 

[End of table] 

Types of Recipients and Funding Mechanisms: 

For 33 of the 39 initiatives, agency officials reported providing 
funding assistance to external recipients. Most initiatives reported 
having more than one eligible type of external funding recipient. In 
addition, 18 initiatives reported conducting in-house technology 
advancement activities. As shown in table 5, officials commonly 
reported that industry, universities, and DOD laboratories were 
eligible types of funding recipients, along with DOE national 
laboratories, and other federal laboratories. The DOE national 
laboratories are an important recipient for DOE programs because 
several of the national laboratories host multidisciplinary battery 
and energy research centers. For example, according to DOE officials, 
the national laboratories, among other things, implement one of BES's 
Energy Frontier Research Centers focused on basic energy storage 
research. The national laboratories also conduct much of the early 
applied research supported by OVT's Vehicle Technologies Energy 
Storage Research and Development initiative and OE's Energy Storage 
Program. 

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

Recipient type: Industry; 
Number of initiatives: 32. 

Recipient type: Universities; 
Number of initiatives: 30. 

Recipient type: Department of Defense laboratories; 
Number of initiatives: 25. 

Recipient type: Department of Energy national laboratories; 
Number of initiatives: 23. 

Recipient type: Other federal government laboratories[A]; 
Number of initiatives: 23. 

Recipient type: Other[B]; 
Number of initiatives: 8. 

Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire responses. 

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

[A] Agencies reported other federal government labs to include 
research agencies such as NIST and NSF. 

[B] Other types of recipients--as marked in questionnaire responses--
include, for example, nonprofit organizations. 

[End of table] 

For most agencies' initiatives, officials reported using more than one 
type of funding mechanism to provide assistance. In particular, 
officials reported funding assistance was provided primarily through 
three types of mechanisms--contracts,[Footnote 21] grants, and 
cooperative agreements.[Footnote 22] As shown in table 6, officials 
for 21 initiatives reported using contracts, officials for 18 reported 
using grants, and officials for 15 reported using cooperative 
agreements. 

Table 6: Number of Initiatives Using Each Funding Mechanism: 

Funding mechanism: Contracts; 
Number of initiatives: 21. 

Funding mechanism: Grants; 
Number of initiatives: 18. 

Funding mechanism: Cooperative agreements; 
Number of initiatives: 15. 

Funding mechanism: Interagency agreements; 
Number of initiatives: 7. 

Funding mechanism: Direct loans; 
Number of initiatives: 2. 

Funding mechanism: Other[A]; 
Number of initiatives: 8. 

Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire responses. 

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

[A] Other types of funding mechanisms--as marked in questionnaire 
responses--include, for example, Space Act agreements. These are legal 
agreements other than contracts, leases, and cooperative agreements 
that NASA uses under authority granted to it in the National 
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to give the agency greater 
flexibility in achieving its mission. 

[End of table] 

Agencies' Initiatives Were Fragmented and Had Overlapping 
Characteristics but Did Not Demonstrate Clear Instances of Duplication: 

According to our analysis, initiatives were fragmented across multiple 
agencies and had overlapping characteristics, but we found no clear 
instances of duplicative initiatives. Initiatives were fragmented 
because they were implemented across six agencies and were involved in 
the same broad area of national need: to advance new and improved 
batteries and other energy storage technologies. We also found 30 
initiatives in four of the agencies had overlapping characteristics, 
to some degree, in that they supported broadly similar technologies, 
uses, technology advancement activities, and goals. These initiatives 
also generally reported that similar types of recipients were eligible 
to receive assistance. Fragmented and overlapping initiatives across 
these agencies resulted from federal efforts to both create and expand 
programs to improve these technologies for a range of agency missions. 
Although the existence of fragmented and overlapping initiatives 
creates the risk of potential unnecessary duplication, initiatives we 
reviewed supported agency-specific missions and strategic priorities 
that differentiated them. In addition, initiatives reported 
differences in the technologies needed for specific uses, specific 
goals, and the types of recipients they provide support to, and we did 
not find clear evidence of duplicative initiatives. 

Initiatives Were Fragmented and Had Overlapping Characteristics: 

The 39 initiatives we identified were fragmented because they were 
implemented by various offices in six agencies and were involved in 
the same broad area of national need: to advance batteries and energy 
storage technologies. In addition, we identified 30 initiatives in 
four of the six agencies--DOE, DOD, NASA, and NSF--that had 
overlapping characteristics, to some degree, with at least one other 
initiative in that they supported broadly similar technologies, 
[Footnote 23] uses, technology advancement activities, and goals. In 
addition, these initiatives generally reported similar types of 
eligible funding recipients. The following are several examples of 
such overlapping characteristics: 

* Basic science research on energy storage. Two initiatives supported 
similar goals for basic research on energy storage. Specifically, in 
fiscal year 2012, DOE's BES established a new initiative called the 
Batteries and Energy Storage Energy Innovation Hub that had a goal to 
rapidly drive toward electrochemical energy storage solutions beyond 
the current limits, for uses in electric cars and the electric grid. 
According to DOE officials, the planned hub will consist of a single 
large multi-year, multi-institution, and cross-disciplinary award with 
each participant expected to work in a coordinated effort. NSF also 
established a new initiative in fiscal year 2012, called the Energy 
for Sustainability Program that the agency reported had a goal to, 
among other things, support basic research on radically new battery 
systems or breakthroughs for use in electric cars. An official from 
NSF told us that awards for the Energy for Sustainability Program will 
be single-investigator grants made generally to academic researchers. 

* Applied research on ground-based vehicle propulsion. Three 
initiatives reported similar goals for applied research on similar 
batteries for ground-based vehicle propulsion. Specifically, DOE's OVT 
Vehicle Technologies Energy Storage Research and Development 
initiative supported applied research to develop next generation 
battery and capacitor materials, cells, packs, and manufacturing 
processes to enable a large market penetration of electric vehicles. 
DOE's ARPA-E Batteries for Electrical Energy Storage in Transportation 
(BEEST) initiative aimed to develop transformational advanced battery 
chemistries, architectures, and manufacturing processes that, if 
successful, would leapfrog next generation technologies and speed 
widespread adoption of electric vehicles. DOD's Army Energy Storage 
for Air and Ground Vehicles initiative focused on applied research to 
develop battery systems and battery integration approaches that 
provide hybrid electric vehicle propulsion for Army tactical and other 
vehicles. 

* Applied research for stationary storage systems. Three initiatives 
reported similar goals for applied research to improve batteries and 
other energy storage technologies for large and small-scale stationary 
power storage. Specifically, DOE's OE Energy Storage Program focused 
on developing batteries and other energy storage technologies and 
systems that will increase the reliability, performance, and 
competitiveness of electricity generation and transmission in the 
electric grid and in stand-alone grids. DOE's ARPA-E Grid-Scale 
Rampable Intermittent Dispatchable Storage (GRIDS) initiative aimed to 
develop new and transformational cost competitive batteries and other 
energy storage technologies to increase electric grid reliability and 
enable greater integration of energy generation from renewable 
sources, such as wind and solar energy, on the electric grid. DOD's 
Navy and Marine Corps Energy Storage Science and Technology initiative 
focused on developing battery and other energy storage devices and 
systems to enable the Navy and Marine Corps to successfully carry out 
current and future missions and to retain superiority over 
adversaries. The initiative's research on these technologies for 
stationary energy storage focused on developing solutions for 
providing back-up and hotel power[Footnote 24] for naval ships, and 
for enabling the use of alternative energy sources, such as solar or 
wind energy, to provide continuous and reliable power for Marine 
forward operating bases and other Navy and Marine facilities. 

* Demonstrations for stationary storage systems. Two initiatives 
reported similar goals for demonstrations of batteries and other 
energy storage technologies to improve the efficiency of stationary 
power systems and their ability to use renewable energy sources. 
Specifically, DOD's Installation Energy Test Bed initiative in the 
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and 
Environment's Environmental Security Technology Certification Program 
had a mission to demonstrate battery technologies for small-scale 
stationary power uses, such as in fixed DOD installations, that will 
enable compatibility with the electric grid, improve efficiency of an 
installation's power network, and enable increased use of distributed 
energy generation, especially renewable energy sources.[Footnote 25] 
DOE's OE Energy Storage Program supports activities to demonstrate the 
value of and evaluate the performance of batteries and other energy 
storage technologies and systems on the electric grid, including large-
scale and distributed systems, such as community energy storage, to 
help define electric grid requirements for batteries and other energy 
storage technologies, and provide valuable knowledge for further 
development and optimization of these technologies. 

In addition, 29 of the 30 broadly overlapping initiatives in DOE, DOD, 
NASA, and NSF also reported that one or more similar types of 
recipients were eligible to receive funding assistance. For example, 
officials from DOE's OVT Vehicle Technologies Energy Storage Research 
and Development initiative and DOD's Army Energy Storage for Air and 
Ground Vehicles initiative reported similar types of eligible 
recipients: industry, universities, DOD laboratories, DOE 
laboratories, and other federal laboratories. 

Fragmented and overlapping initiatives have resulted from federal 
efforts to both create and expand programs across agencies to improve 
batteries and other energy storage technologies for a range of agency 
missions. Officials from DOE and DOD told us that their initiatives 
had broadly similar characteristics because energy storage 
technologies are generally enabling technologies that help agencies to 
work toward broader agency technology goals. For example, DOE is 
focused on developing batteries to incorporate in electric cars and 
for use in the electric grid while DOD is focused on incorporating 
these technologies in military vehicles, soldier worn or carried 
equipment, and weapons. Officials from DOE, DOD, and NASA also told us 
that initiatives that have broadly similar characteristics can result 
in complementary research. For example, the DOE official who leads the 
OVT's Hybrid and Electric Systems Team told us that DOE has funded the 
development of a battery abuse modeling tool that predicts how a 
battery will respond when subjected to abnormally high operating 
temperatures. DOE officials told us that Army's Tank Automotive 
Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) has funded 
research to adapt the modeling tool to analyze the performance of 
batteries used in Army systems and military operational scenarios. In 
addition, officials from DOD told us that overlap can be beneficial in 
the area of basic research where there are potentially multiple 
approaches for achieving similar goals. For example, one DOD official 
said that there are many approaches to developing new energy storage 
materials and increasing the surface area of these materials at the 
nanoscale; and having multiple efforts focused on this and similar 
scientific challenges increases the chances of making these new 
discoveries. However, the existence of broadly overlapping initiatives 
also creates the risk of potential duplication. 

Federal Initiatives Did Not Demonstrate Clear Instances of Duplication: 

Fragmentation and overlap are, by themselves, not an indication that 
unnecessary duplication of initiatives exists. In particular, we found 
that agencies' battery and energy storage initiatives supported agency-
specific missions and strategic priorities that differentiated them. 
The following are agency missions and strategic priorities supported 
by each federal agency included in our review: 

* DOE's mission is to ensure America's security and prosperity by 
addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through 
transformative science and technology solutions. DOE's battery and 
energy storage initiatives support its mission by supporting the 
agency's strategic plan goal to catalyze the timely, material, and 
efficient transformation of the nation's energy system and secure U.S. 
leadership in clean energy technologies such as electric vehicle 
batteries. 

* DOD has defined energy security as a strategic priority for the 
military services. Energy security involves helping to assure access 
to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and deliver 
sufficient energy to meet operational needs. DOD's battery and energy 
storage initiatives help support this strategic priority by delivering 
power for equipment carried or worn by soldiers, weapon systems, and 
military vehicles, as well as enabling tactical operations and fixed 
military bases to more efficiently use fossil fuels and make greater 
use of renewable energy sources. 

* NASA's mission is to drive advances in science, technology, and 
exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, economic 
vitality, and stewardship of Earth. NASA's battery and energy storage 
initiatives support its mission by contributing to innovation of space 
exploration technologies to help achieve its space exploration 
missions. 

* NSF's mission is to promote the progress of science; to advance the 
national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national 
defense; and for other purposes. To implement its mission, NSF 
supports research and education across all fields and disciplines of 
science and engineering and at all levels of education. NSF-funded 
fundamental research and education projects fuel innovation and 
contribute directly to addressing national challenges, such as the 
development of a clean energy economy. As a result, NSF has supported 
research on the conversion, storage, and distribution of diverse power 
sources as well as on energy materials, energy use, and energy 
efficiency. 

* EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. EPA's 
energy storage initiative helps support its mission by supporting 
improved fuel economy and reduced vehicle air pollution emissions. 

* NIST's mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial 
competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and 
technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our 
quality of life. NIST has a single project related to battery and 
energy storage, which supports this mission by developing new tools 
and measurement systems needed to characterize the nanoscale 
properties of materials and devices relevant to energy storage. 

We also found that agency officials involved in the initiatives 
reported differences in the technologies needed for specific uses, 
their initiatives' specific goals, and the types of recipients 
eligible for assistance; further differentiating their respective 
initiatives. Examples are as follows: 

* Differences in technologies for specific uses. Agency officials 
involved in broadly overlapping initiatives reported that, although 
the initiatives may support similar technologies, there were 
meaningful differences in them because specific uses have unique 
operational requirements. For example, both DOE's OE Energy Storage 
Program and DOD's Navy and Marine Corps Energy Storage Science and 
Technology initiative supported applied research on similar types of 
batteries for stationary power storage. However, DOE's initiative 
focused on addressing operational requirements of batteries for use in 
the commercial electric grid, and DOD's Navy and Marine Corps 
initiative focused on the operational requirements unique to Navy and 
Marine Corps-specific uses such as back-up and hotel power on naval 
ships. For example, officials from DOE's OE told us the operational 
requirements for using batteries on the commercial electric grid 
include, among other factors, low cost and long cycle life, which is 
the amount of time that a battery can operate at a specified level of 
performance. In contrast, DOD officials from the Navy and the Office 
of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering 
told us that batteries for providing back-up and auxiliary power for 
naval ships at sea must be light and compact enough to be easily 
transported, be rugged enough to fully operate after absorbing 
battlefield shocks, and be capable of operating under extreme 
temperature ranges such those present inside a naval ship. 

* Differences in specific goals. Agency officials involved in broadly 
overlapping initiatives generally reported differences in their 
initiatives' specific goals. For example, both DOE's OVT Vehicle 
Technologies Energy Storage Research and Development initiative and 
DOE's ARPA-E BEEST focused on improving battery technologies to help 
expand markets for electric vehicles. However, officials from OVT 
reported that their initiative primarily focused on developing next 
generation lithium-ion batteries to meet, among other goals, energy 
storage, safety, and cost metrics to enable a plug-in hybrid electric 
car with an all-electric driving range of 40 miles to compete 
commercially with conventional gas-powered cars. In contrast, 
officials from ARPA-E reported that the BEEST initiative focused on 
developing ultra-high energy density, low-cost, transformational 
battery technologies beyond next generation lithium-ion batteries--
such as metal-air and lithium-metal batteries--to enable an electric 
car that can travel 100 miles or more without needing to recharge to 
compete commercially with conventional gas-powered cars. 

* Differences in types of recipients. Broadly overlapping initiatives 
reported differences in the types of recipients that were eligible to 
receive funding assistance. For example, both DOE's Batteries and 
Energy Storage Energy Innovation Hub and NSF's Energy for 
Sustainability Program reported that universities and industry were 
eligible to receive funding assistance. However, DOE officials 
reported that the hub had a broader number of eligible types of 
recipients. Specifically, DOE will award the hub funding to a lead 
entity that may be a DOE national laboratory, industry, university, or 
not-for-profit research institution. In addition, DOE officials also 
reported that DOD and other federal laboratories may participate in 
the hub despite not being eligible to lead it. The lead entity will be 
responsible for involving partners based in universities, private 
industry, nonprofits, and DOE's national laboratories and ensuring the 
hub has a broad focus on cross-disciplinary energy science, 
engineering, economics, and public policy. According to NSF officials, 
the agency typically supports single investigator research projects 
and makes its awards to university-based researchers who may receive 
additional support from industry partners in the form of funding or in-
kind assistance, or even internship opportunities if the researcher is 
a graduate student. 

While we did not find clear instances of duplicative initiatives, it 
is possible that there are duplicative activities among the 
initiatives that could be consolidated or resolved through enhanced 
coordination across agencies and at the initiative level. Also, it is 
possible that there are instances in which recipients receive funding 
from more than one federal source or that initiatives may fund some 
activities that would have otherwise sought and received private 
funding. Because it was beyond the scope of this work to look at the 
vast number of activities and individual awards that are encompassed 
in the initiatives we evaluated, we were unable to rule out the 
existence of any such duplication of activities or funding. Agency 
officials from most initiatives (30 of the 39) did report in survey 
responses that they include questions on their funding applications 
about other sources of federal funding that an applicant may be 
receiving for the same project. Officials from several of these 
agencies reported that they use this information to help avoid 
multiple funding of the same activity. For example, officials from NSF 
reported that potential awardees are required to provide detailed 
descriptions of their related work supported by federal funds. The 
scope and budget of the NSF award is adjusted if necessary to avoid 
multiple funding for any activity. 

Agencies Reported Coordinating Their Initiatives with Each Other and 
Internally through Several Activities: 

Agencies reported several activities to coordinate with each other on 
their battery and energy storage initiatives, including nearly all 
initiatives that we identified as overlapping. In addition, DOE has 
taken steps to internally coordinate its electric vehicle battery and 
electric grid storage initiatives through several activities that, 
among other things, involved defining common technology goals. DOD has 
taken several actions to improve its coordination of battery and 
energy storage initiatives based on a recommendation in one of our 
prior reports. Agencies' actions were consistent with key practices we 
have previously identified that can help enhance and sustain federal 
agency coordination.[Footnote 26] As we have previously reported, a 
lack of coordination can waste scarce funds and limit the overall 
effectiveness of the federal effort. 

Agencies Coordinated with Each Other through Several Activities: 

All six agencies reported coordinating with other each other on their 
battery and energy storage initiatives through a variety of 
activities. In addition, agency officials from nearly all initiatives 
that we identified as having overlapping characteristics (in that they 
supported similar technology advancement activities, technologies, 
uses, and goals) reported coordinating with other battery and energy 
storage initiatives. We have previously reported that coordination 
across programs may help address fragmentation, overlap, and 
duplication.[Footnote 27] We grouped the various coordination 
activities that agency officials reported into five categories on the 
basis of our analysis. We found agency activities that were consistent 
with key practices we have previously identified that can help enhance 
and sustain federal agency coordination, including monitoring, 
evaluating, and reporting on results and agreeing on roles and 
responsibilities.[Footnote 28] The categories of actions taken by 
agencies and examples of specific activities were as follows: 

* Participating in working groups. Agency officials reported 
participating in several working groups. In particular, agency 
officials from DOE, DOD, and NASA identified the Chemical Working 
Group (CWG) of the Interagency Advanced Power Group as a key means for 
sharing information on energy storage science and technology 
advancement. The CWG provides an annual forum for agency program 
officials to present information on the progress and results of their 
ongoing projects to each other. The main participants in the CWG are 
DOE's ARPA-E, BES, Hydrogen Fuel Cells Program Office, and OVT; DOD's 
Air Force, Army, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), 
and Navy; and NASA. Several of these offices implemented initiatives 
we identified previously as overlapping, such as ARPA-E's GRIDS 
initiative and the Navy and Marine Corps Energy Storage Science and 
Technology initiative. In December 2010, we reported that the CWG 
meetings have been effective in identifying instances of project 
duplication in the past.[Footnote 29] According to the chairs of the 
CWG, these meetings also create an opportunity for information 
exchange among agencies or their offices that has led to technology 
transfer. For example, these officials said that interactions fostered 
by the working group led to the transfer of knowledge developed by 
NASA on zinc-air battery technology to the Army and Marine Corps for 
use in their own projects. In addition to the CWG, agencies identified 
a number of other working groups, such as the NASA Power Steering 
Committee, the NASA Battery Working Group, the DOD Power Sources 
Technical Working Group, and the DOD Energy and Power Community of 
Interest. We have previously reported that federal agencies engaged in 
collaborative efforts should report on their activities to help key 
decision makers within the agencies, as well as clients and 
stakeholders, to obtain feedback for improving both policy and 
operational effectiveness. 

* Implementing interagency memorandums. Agency officials identified 
several interagency memorandums. As a case in point, DOE and DOD 
signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in July 2010 to establish a 
framework for cooperation and partnership on energy issues. Under this 
MOU, DOE and DOD offices have implemented several joint programs and 
projects. For example, DOE's OVT and the Army's TARDEC established the 
Advanced Vehicle Power Technology Alliance (AVPTA) to coordinate their 
ground vehicle power research, including research on batteries for 
hybrid electric propulsion systems. In addition, ARPA-E and a number 
of DOD offices, including the Army Research Laboratory, TARDEC, Air 
Force Research Laboratory, Office of Naval Research, and Naval Surface 
Warfare Centers, as well as the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs (OEPP) and the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 
Engineering established the Hybrid Energy Storage Module Integrated 
Project Team to develop coordinated funding announcements to support 
research on a variety of energy storage technologies for military and 
civilian uses. Further, DOE's OE Energy Storage Program and the Army's 
Ft. Leonard Wood jointly funded a microgrid energy storage 
demonstration project. Several of these DOE and DOD offices were 
involved in implementing overlapping initiatives that we identified. 
For example, we identified DOE's OVT Vehicle Technologies Energy 
Storage Research and Development initiative as having overlapping 
characteristics with DOD's Army Energy Storage for Air and Ground 
Vehicles initiative, which includes energy storage research and 
development activities supported by TARDEC. We have previously 
reported that collaborating agencies should work together to define 
and agree on their respective roles and responsibilities. In doing so, 
agencies can clarify which of them does what and organize their joint 
and individual efforts. 

Coordinating directly through agency staff. Agencies also reported a 
number of activities that involved agency staff coordinating directly 
across initiatives. For example, DOE officials from BES reported that 
they engage in program manager discussions with other agencies, such 
as NSF and DOD, to help monitor their initiatives' activities and 
provide clear distinctions between DOE supported research and that 
funded by other agencies. As we noted previously, DOE's BES Batteries 
and Energy Storage Energy Innovation Hub had overlapping 
characteristics with NSF's Energy for Sustainability Program. In 
addition, Air Force officials from the Batteries for Space-Based 
Vehicles initiative, which primarily supports batteries for 
satellites, reported that they have conducted joint technology 
planning activities for space power and energy storage research needs 
with DOD's National Reconnaissance Office, which operates and 
maintains U.S. intelligence satellites. Agency officials also reported 
assisting each other with project selection and review to, among other 
things, reduce the risk of potential duplication of projects. For 
example, DARPA officials reported that officials from ARPA-E 
participated in DARPA's project selection panels for its Revolutionary 
Portable Energy Storage for the Warfighter initiative, and NASA 
officials with the Space Power Systems Project reported that they 
participate in DOE OVT's annual merit review and peer evaluation 
meetings. We have reported that federal agencies engaged in 
collaborative efforts need to create the means to monitor and evaluate 
their efforts to enable them to identify areas for improvement. 

* Sponsoring and participating in conferences and workshops. Agencies 
reported sponsoring and participating in conferences and workshops 
with other agencies. For example, officials from DOE's BES reported 
that they sponsored a workshop that included officials from other 
agencies and that aimed to define common outcomes for DOE's basic 
research needs for electrical energy storage. Likewise, officials from 
the Air Force Special Purpose Power initiative reported participating 
in DOD's biannual Power Sources Conference, which coordinates current 
developments in power sources and energy storage development and 
allows the opportunity to report on the results of initiatives. We 
have previously reported that collaboration can help agencies to 
define and articulate the common federal outcome. 

* Checking applications for potentially duplicative federal funding. 
As we mentioned previously, officials from most initiatives reported 
that they include questions on their funding applications about other 
sources of federal funding that an applicant may be receiving for the 
same project. Officials from several of these agencies reported that 
they use this information to help avoid multiple funding of the same 
activity. 

DOE Has Taken Steps to Coordinate Its Electric Vehicle Battery and 
Grid Storage Initiatives: 

DOE has taken steps to internally coordinate its electric vehicle 
battery and electric grid storage initiatives through several actions. 
We found that these involved defining common technology goals; 
establishing strategies; and monitoring, evaluating, and reporting 
results. Specific steps are as follows: 

* In September 2011, DOE completed an agencywide technology research 
and development plan, called its Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR), 
to guide its energy technology programs through 2015 under six 
strategies.[Footnote 30] The QTR identified batteries and other energy 
storage technologies as critical elements in two of the strategies: 
vehicle electrification and electric grid modernization. DOE's vehicle 
electrification strategy is focused on developing technologies for 
light-duty electric vehicles to help significantly reduce oil 
consumption. These technologies include advanced rechargeable 
batteries and other components of electric vehicle systems.[Footnote 
31] DOE's grid modernization strategy is focused on developing 
technologies to help maintain reliable and secure electricity 
infrastructure that can meet expected growth in the demand for 
electricity in the future and integrate renewable energy technologies. 
In addition to energy storage, grid modernization includes advanced 
modeling of power distribution needs, and "smart grid" technologies 
that use computer-based remote control and automation devices such as 
sensors to improve monitoring and control of power flows. 

* DOE has also recently established two working groups, called 
integrated technical teams--one focused on electric vehicle batteries 
and the other on grid modernization. The technical teams provide staff 
from different DOE offices a mechanism to help monitor, evaluate, and 
report on their activities and results. For example, through the 
technical teams, participating offices review their funding 
announcements and conduct portfolio progress reviews of each other's 
ongoing work to avoid duplication between their initiatives. In 
addition, these teams have worked together to define common technology 
goals for DOE's battery and energy storage initiatives. 

- Electric Vehicle Battery Technical Team. This team includes 
officials from OVT, ARPA-E, and BES. The technical team set three 
common goals for DOE's electric vehicle battery technology advancement 
efforts: (1) the battery should not cost more than $0.01 per mile 
driven over the life of the battery; (2) the battery should get at 
least 10 miles of range per minute of charging time; and (3) should be 
safe, constructed of earth-abundant materials, and be recyclable. 

- Grid Modernization Technical Team. This team includes officials from 
the OE Energy Storage Program, ARPA-E, and BES. Among other actions, 
the offices on the team established joint strategies. Specifically, 
they cosponsored strategic planning workshops to determine agencywide 
priorities for applied research on batteries and other energy storage 
technologies for the electric grid, as well as specific performance 
targets for these technologies.[Footnote 32] DOE has also established 
a goal of reducing the cost of energy storage on the grid by 30 
percent by 2015, which the technical team is working together to 
achieve. 

In addition to the technical teams, DOE offices reported other 
activities to coordinate directly with each other to help avoid 
duplicating efforts. For example, ARPA-E has formed a Panel of Senior 
Technical Advisors (PASTA) to coordinate with other DOE offices to 
leverage resources and ensure that ARPA-E provides unique value. As we 
reported in January 2012, PASTA is a group of DOE managers that meet 
periodically to discuss current and future DOE research 
efforts.[Footnote 33] PASTA includes managers from ARPA-E and, among 
others, the Office of Science, EERE, and OE. 

DOD Has Taken Steps to Improve Its Coordination of Battery and Energy 
Storage Initiatives: 

DOD officials told us that DOD has taken the following actions to 
improve its coordination of battery and energy storage initiatives, 
both with other agencies and, internally, among its offices and the 
services: 

* A DOD official from OEPP told us that DOD has taken two actions to 
improve coordination with other agencies on battery and energy storage 
initiatives in response to a past GAO recommendation. In 2010, we 
reported that DOD's coordination on power sources science and 
technology, which includes batteries and other energy storage 
technologies, was generally effective. However, we concluded that the 
agency may be missing opportunities to leverage resources and avoid 
offices initiating similar research projects because participation in 
some coordination activities was voluntary and could be more complete. 
[Footnote 34] We recommended that DOD determine methods to strengthen 
participation in interagency coordination mechanisms. To address our 
recommendation: 

- A DOD official from OEPP told us that DOD's Assistant Secretaries of 
Defense for Research and Engineering and for OEPP have assigned the 
DOD Energy and Power Community of Interest (EPCOI) the responsibility 
for ensuring interagency coordination mechanisms on power sources 
science and technology. The EPCOI working group involves officials 
from the Army, Air Force, and Navy to coordinate DOD energy and power 
science and technology activities, including batteries and other 
energy storage technologies. 

- As described earlier in this report, DOD and DOE offices have 
implemented several joint programs and projects as a result of the 
July 2010 MOU between the agencies to coordinate on energy issues. 

- DOD officials told us that DOD has taken two actions to improve its 
coordination of battery and energy storage initiatives among its 
offices and the services. First, officials from DOD's OEPP told us 
that DOD has created an operational energy[Footnote 35] strategy that 
DOD issued in May 2011, as well as an implementation plan for this 
strategy that DOD issued in March 2012. These plans established 
departmentwide priorities for reducing demand for operational energy 
through, in part, investment in new technologies and equipment such as 
lighter batteries.[Footnote 36] DOD officials told us that the 
strategy will help coordinate DOD's battery and energy storage 
initiatives because it provides an agencywide road map for 
incorporating operational energy priorities, such as energy storage 
science and technology investments, in DOD's programs. Second, DOD has 
also tasked OEPP to certify that the budget submissions of DOD offices 
and the services reflect these priorities. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to DOE, DOD, 
NASA, NSF, EPA, and NIST. DOE, DOD, NASA, and NSF provided technical 
and clarifying comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The 
other agencies we reviewed had no comments. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the 
Secretaries of Defense, Energy, and Commerce; the Administrators of 
the EPA and NASA; the Directors of NIST and NSF; the appropriate 
congressional committees; and other interested parties. In addition, 
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to 
this report are listed in appendix VI. 

Signed by: 

Frank Rusco: 
Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to (1) identify the scope and key characteristics 
of federal battery and energy storage initiatives; (2) determine the 
extent to which there is potential fragmentation, overlap, or 
duplication of these initiatives, if any; and (3) determine the extent 
to which agencies coordinate their battery and energy storage 
initiatives. 

To inform our overall review and help us understand the range of 
batteries and other energy storage technologies, their uses, and the 
increased interest in these technologies in recent years, we collected 
background information from several sources. Specifically, we reviewed 
a 2010 GAO report that identified Department of Defense (DOD) 
investments in power sources, including batteries and other energy 
storage technologies.[Footnote 37] We also consulted analysts from the 
Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the Department of Energy's 
(DOE) Office of Inspector General who have subject-matter expertise on 
federal battery and energy storage initiatives. We also interviewed 
officials from DOE's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-
E), Loan Programs Office, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Office 
of Vehicle Technologies (OVT), and Office of Science's Office of Basic 
Energy Sciences to learn about their ongoing and planned initiatives, 
as well as officials from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's 
Office of Energy Policy and Innovation regarding recent electricity 
market regulatory developments relevant to batteries and other energy 
storage technologies. 

To identify the scope and key characteristics of federal battery and 
energy storage initiatives, we first decided to focus our review on 
rechargeable (i.e., secondary) batteries and other technologies but 
excluded nonrechargeable (i.e., primary) batteries, fuel cells, and 
nuclear energy storage technologies. In addition, we focused on 
initiatives that were active[Footnote 38] in any year during fiscal 
years 2009 through 2012 because, during these years, DOE offices made 
substantial investments in these technologies, including with funds 
made available under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
(Recovery Act). For example, DOE's ARPA-E supported about $97 million 
in battery and energy storage technologies during fiscal years 2010 
and 2011 with funding made available under the Recovery Act. We then 
developed several definitions to help us identify initiatives. For 
example, we defined an initiative as a group of agency activities 
serving a similar purpose or function, such as a program or mission 
area. For the purposes of the review, we also developed definitions 
for technology advancement activities: basic science, applied 
research, demonstrations, commercialization, and deployment 
activities.[Footnote 39] We limited our review to initiatives that 
supported basic science, applied research, demonstrations, and 
commercialization activities for batteries and other energy storage 
technologies. Because initiatives often supported more than one type 
of technology advancement activity, some of the initiatives included 
in this report may also support deployment activities. However, we 
excluded any initiatives that focused solely on deployment and 
initiatives that involved agency-owned assets such as fleets or 
facilities. For example, we did not include the Department of the 
Treasury (Treasury) and several federal tax credits it administered 
that indirectly supported deployment of battery and energy storage 
technologies during fiscal years 2009 through 2012. Treasury officials 
told us data were generally not available on the estimated revenue 
loss directly associated with batteries and other energy storage 
technologies because available data do not break out qualifying 
investments in fine enough detail to determine which part may have 
been for qualifying battery and energy storage devices. 

We next took steps to identify the agencies and initiatives that 
supported these technologies and were in our scope. To do this, we 
first compiled a preliminary list of agencies and initiatives based on 
two previous GAO reports that collected information on some federal 
battery and energy storage initiatives active in fiscal year 2010. 
[Footnote 40] In addition, as mentioned previously, we interviewed DOE 
officials and also reviewed DOE documents. We also searched several 
databases and websites, including the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance, National Technical Information Service, Article First, 
ECO, Worldcat, and the Congressional Research Service for materials 
published in the last 10 years that might identify relevant agencies 
and initiatives. We shared a preliminary list of initiatives with 
agency officials, along with information about our scope and 
definitions for key terms--such as batteries and energy storage 
technologies, active initiatives, and technology advancement 
activities--and asked officials to confirm the initiatives on our list 
and also which initiatives should be added. If agency officials 
indicated they wanted to remove an initiative from or consolidate 
initiatives on our list, we asked for additional information. For 
example, we removed from our list an initiative in the Department of 
Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that 
we learned focused on developing safety measures regarding the 
batteries in commercially available electric vehicles and not on 
technology advancement activities. In addition, DOD officials told us 
they wanted to consolidate their programs and projects into distinct 
initiatives for each of the military services for the purpose of our 
review because their programs and projects cut across multiple 
offices. Through interviews and other correspondence with agency 
officials, we confirmed a final list of six agencies and 39 federal 
battery and energy storage initiatives. We may not have identified and 
included every battery and energy storage initiative in the agencies 
we reviewed; however, given our methodology, we believe we have 
identified most, if not all. 

We then developed a questionnaire to collect information from 
officials involved in the 39 initiatives we identified at the six 
agencies on the initiatives' key characteristics. We asked each agency 
to confirm the names and contact information for the officials most 
knowledgeable about each initiative, and thus the most appropriate 
person to complete the questionnaire. Specifically, we developed 
questions that asked about the types of technology advancement 
activities supported, technologies and uses supported, whether staff 
conducted in-house activities or provided assistance to external 
recipients, types of eligible recipients, and types of funding 
mechanisms used to provide assistance. We also asked about the 
initiative's mission and overarching goals, its goals, if any, 
directly related to battery and energy storage technologies, 
performance measures, as well as technical cost and technical 
performance targets that the initiative may have. We asked about 
obligations for fiscal years 2009 through 2012. Finally, we also asked 
whether staff from the initiative formally coordinated with other 
battery and energy storage initiatives within their agency or with 
other federal agencies and to describe examples of any coordination 
activities. To minimize errors arising from the differences in how 
questions might be interpreted and to reduce variability in responses 
that should be qualitatively the same, we worked with an independent 
GAO questionnaire specialist and conducted pretests of draft 
questionnaires with officials we had identified from four different 
initiatives at four different agencies during February and March 2012. 
We conducted the pretests to check that (1) the questions were clear 
and unambiguous, (2) terminology was used correctly, (3) the 
questionnaire did not place an undue burden on agency officials, (4) 
the information could feasibly be obtained, and (5) the questionnaire 
was comprehensive and unbiased. A second independent GAO questionnaire 
specialist also reviewed a draft of the questionnaire prior to its 
administration. On the basis of feedback from these pretests and 
independent review, we revised the questionnaire in order to improve 
its clarity.[Footnote 41] 

After completing the pretests, we administered the questionnaire. We 
sent questionnaires to the appropriate agency officials in an attached 
Microsoft Word form. We received questionnaire responses for each 
initiative and, thus, had a response rate of 100 percent. After 
analyzing the responses, we conducted follow-up e-mail exchanges or 
telephone discussions with agency officials when responses were 
unclear or conflicting, such as when both "Yes" and "No" boxes were 
checked or boxes were left completely unchecked. When necessary, we 
used the clarifying information provided by agency officials to update 
answers to questions to improve the accuracy and completeness of the 
data. Some officials reported that the funding obligations data had to 
be estimated because the initiative did not track its obligations for 
battery and energy storage-specific activities. In addition, all 
funding obligations reported for fiscal year 2012 were estimated. For 
these cases, we conducted follow-up interviews and reviewed relevant 
supplemental documentation to understand how the officials arrived at 
estimates and to assess the reliability of these estimates for our 
purposes. Overall, we determined agencies' estimates to be 
sufficiently reliable for purposes of our report. As a result of our 
follow-up discussions with agency officials to clarify responses, we 
determined in consultation with the agencies that one DOD and one NASA 
initiative did not meet our original definitions of a battery and 
energy storage initiative. Thus, we removed these initiatives from our 
final list, which changed from 41 to 39 initiatives. According to an 
official from DOE's OVT, since the survey focused on research and 
development activities, they did not include in their survey response 
$1.5 billion in funds made available under the Recovery Act. With 
these funds DOE made awards to 20 projects to support the 
establishment of advanced battery manufacturing and battery recycling 
facilities in the U.S. DOE officials provided this information 
separately in OVT's annual energy storage research progress reports. 
[Footnote 42] A copy of our questionnaire is presented in appendix V. 

We used standard descriptive statistics to analyze responses to the 
questionnaire. Because this effort was not a sample questionnaire, it 
has no sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of 
conducting any questionnaire may introduce errors, commonly referred 
to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in interpreting a 
particular question, sources of information available to respondents, 
or entering data into a database or analyzing them can introduce 
unwanted variability into the questionnaire results. We took steps in 
developing the questionnaire and collecting and analyzing the data to 
minimize such nonsampling errors. For example, social science 
questionnaire specialists designed the questionnaire in collaboration 
with GAO staff that had subject-matter expertise. As previously 
mentioned, we pretested the draft questionnaire to ensure that the 
questions were clearly stated and easy to understand. When we analyzed 
the data using computer programs, an independent analyst checked the 
results from all the computer programs. Finally, we verified the 
accuracy of a small sample of keypunched records by comparing them 
with their corresponding questionnaires, and we corrected the errors 
we found. Less than 0.5 percent of the data items we checked had 
random keypunch errors that would not have been corrected during data 
processing. While we did not verify all responses, on the basis of our 
application of recognized questionnaire design practices and follow-up 
procedures, we determined that the data used in this report were of 
sufficient quality for our purposes. 

To determine the extent to which there is potential fragmentation, 
overlap, or duplication of these initiatives, if any, we developed 
definitions for these terms based on definitions established in prior 
GAO reports. Specifically, for the purposes of this report, 
fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, were defined as follows: 

* Fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency (or more than 
one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad area 
of national need. 

* Overlap occurs when multiple initiatives support similar 
technologies, uses, technology advancement activities, and funding 
recipients, and have similar goals. 

* Duplication occurs when multiple initiatives support the same 
technology advancement activities for the same technologies and uses, 
provide funding to the same recipients using the same funding 
mechanisms, and have the same goals. 

To analyze potential fragmentation, we used agencies' questionnaire 
responses to confirm the number of federal agencies that supported 
battery and energy storage initiatives. We compared this information 
with our GAO definition for fragmentation. To analyze potential 
overlap and duplication, we analyzed the key characteristics provided 
by agencies for each initiative in their questionnaire responses. 
Specifically, we compared each initiative with each of the other 38 
initiatives to determine whether agency officials reported that the 
initiatives supported at least one similar technology advancement 
activity, type of battery and other energy storage technology, and 
category of use. If the initiatives did not share one of these three 
characteristics, they were considered not to have potential overlap. 
For two initiatives that reported similar responses for all three 
characteristics, we compared additional information from questionnaire 
responses regarding the initiatives' missions, goals, performance 
measures, technical cost metrics and technical performance metrics (if 
any were reported), to determine whether the initiatives also had 
similar missions or goals. If so, we determined the initiatives were 
potentially overlapping. To complete the analysis, two GAO scientists/ 
engineers independently performed these comparisons and compared their 
findings. They discussed their independent findings to come to a joint 
decision as to whether initiatives were potentially overlapping or 
not. If an initiative was determined to be potentially overlapping, 
then we considered it to hold potential for duplication as well. For 
initiatives that we identified as potentially overlapping, we held 
interviews with agency officials to gather more information to verify 
that they were in fact similar. We did not interview officials 
involved in every initiative that we identified as potentially 
overlapping but focused on selected ones in DOE, DOD, and the National 
Science Foundation (NSF) primarily. We also reviewed questionnaire 
responses regarding each battery and energy storage initiative's 
mission and overarching goals to identify how the initiative supported 
the agency's overall mission. 

To determine the extent to which agencies coordinate their 
initiatives, we used questionnaire responses and interviews to 
identify interagency coordination activities across the six agencies. 
For determining the extent of internal coordination, we examined 
internal coordination in DOE and DOD of initiatives within those 
agencies because they had the largest number of initiatives and amount 
of funding obligations among the agencies we reviewed. We also 
followed up with DOD on actions, if any, it took to address 
recommendations we made in 2010. We did not assess internal 
coordination in NASA, NSF, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
or the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) because 
total funding obligations for these initiatives were substantially 
smaller than for DOE and DOD. For example, NASA's total obligations 
were about $21 million, and DOE's were about $852 million for fiscal 
years 2009 through 2012. For the purposes of this report, we defined 
coordination as any joint activity by two or more organizations that 
is intended to produce more public value than could be produced when 
the organizations act alone. We drew on past GAO work related to 
interagency coordination to help us identify agency coordination 
activities.[Footnote 43] 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to August 2012 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Appendix II: Batteries and Other Energy Storage Technologies: 

Agencies reported supporting a number of batteries and other energy 
storage technologies through their initiatives. Table 7 provides 
descriptions of technologies identified during our review. 

Table 7: Batteries and Other Energy Storage Technologies: 

Rechargeable batteries: 

Advanced lead-acid batteries; These are improved versions of the 100 
year old battery used to provide power for starting vehicle engines. 
These batteries use lead as the anode, lead dioxide as the cathode, 
and a sulfuric acid electrolyte. Advanced lead-acid batteries are 
considered suitable for stationary storage uses. They are commercially 
available but also are being researched to, among other goals, improve 
the amount of time they can be usefully discharged and recharged. 

Flow batteries[A]; Flow batteries--such as vanadium redox and zinc-
bromide--store energy in electrolyte solutions that are contained in 
external tanks. They are candidates for use in stationary storage 
systems. Some flow batteries are commercially available or being 
demonstrated. Most types are also being researched. 

Lithium-ion batteries; These are batteries in which lithium ions move 
from the cathode to the anode during the discharging and charging 
processes. These batteries are the most popular type of rechargeable 
battery for use in personal electronics and increasingly for electric 
vehicles and stationary storage systems. Research efforts aim to 
improve their energy capacity, safety, and reduce their cost. 

Lithium-metal batteries; These are batteries that use lithium as the 
anode. They hold the potential for providing greater energy stored per 
unit weight compared with lithium-ion batteries. These batteries are 
currently being researched primarily for electric vehicles, although 
they have other potential uses. Research aims to, among other goals, 
develop new materials and battery cell designs. 

Metal-air batteries; These are batteries that use oxygen as the 
cathode and a metal anode such as magnesium, iron, or lithium. They 
hold potential for providing higher energy density and lower costs 
than lithium-ion batteries. These batteries are currently being 
researched for electric vehicles and stationary storage uses. Research 
aims to, among other goals, improve their ability to recharge. 

Sodium batteries; Batteries that use sodium, or sodium compounds as 
electrodes. They are primarily considered suited for use in stationary 
storage systems. Some sodium batteries are commercially available, but 
others are being researched. Currently, research aims to, among other 
goals, develop new materials and battery cell designs. 

Other energy storage technologies: 

Capacitors; These are devices that store energy in an electrostatic 
charge that can withstand hundreds of thousands of charge and 
discharge cycles without degrading. Capacitors have been used for 
small, primarily consumer electronic devices and are increasingly 
being developed for high-power weaponry and commercial electric 
vehicles. Currently, research aims to, among other goals, increase 
their energy density. 

Compressed air energy storage (CAES); This is a storage system that 
involves injecting compressed air into a geological formation such as 
an underground cavern within a salt dome. To recover the power, the 
air is released and used to help drive a turbine generator. CAES 
provides bulk energy storage for stationary power systems. Currently, 
CAES is a mature technology; however, research exists to, among other 
things, develop new turbine technologies. 

Flywheels; These are devices that store electricity in the form of 
mechanical energy in a spinning wheel or tube. To recover power, the 
flywheel drives a generator. Flywheels provide high power and quick 
release of energy over short durations. Flywheels are commercially 
available; however, research is being done to, among other goals, find 
new and improved device materials. 

Hydraulic accumulator energy storage[B]; These are devices that store 
energy in the form of pressurized pumped fluid. Accumulators are being 
demonstrated and researched for use in hybrid vehicles that combine a 
hydraulic pump-powered motor with a gas-powered motor to provide 
vehicle propulsion. 

Solar thermal energy storage[B]; These are systems that store heat 
from solar energy collection in a medium such as molten salt and 
release it to drive a turbine electricity generator. The technology is 
currently commercial in small amounts and limited by the need for 
suitable geography. There is ongoing research to develop thermal 
energy storage materials and storage methods. 

Superconducting magnetic energy storage[B]; These are devices that 
store energy in the form of a magnetic field. These devices are used 
for stationary storage systems because they provide short bursts of 
energy very rapidly to help support power grid electricity 
reliability. They are commercially available but are also being 
researched to develop systems with lower costs. 

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

[A] Agency officials reported that their initiatives supported flow 
batteries other than redox flow batteries by using the "other 
batteries" field provided in our questionnaire. See appendix IV for 
selected questionnaire responses for the initiatives we reviewed. We 
reported initiatives' support for these batteries under "other" 
technologies (column 11). 

[B] Agency officials reported that their initiative supported this 
type of energy storage technology using the "other technologies" field 
provided in our questionnaire. See appendix IV for selected 
questionnaire responses for the initiatives we reviewed. We reported 
initiatives' support for this technology under "other" technologies 
(column 11). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Federal Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives: 

We identified 39 initiatives across six agencies that supported 
batteries and other energy storage technologies through basic 
research, applied research, demonstrations, commercialization, and 
deployment activities. Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 provide 
descriptions of the initiatives in each agency by implementing office. 

Table 8: Department of Energy Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives 
and Their Total Funding Obligations for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012: 

Name of initiative and description: Vehicle Technologies Energy 
Storage Research and Development: This initiative, implemented by the 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Office of Vehicle 
Technologies (OVT), advances battery technologies to enable a large 
market penetration of hybrid and electric vehicles through applied 
materials research and battery development activities with national 
labs, universities, and industry; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $323,043,000[A]. 

Name of initiative and description: Office of Electricity Energy 
Storage Program: This program, implemented by the Office of 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE), is designed to 
develop and demonstrate new and advanced energy storage technologies 
that will enable the stability and surety of the future electric 
utility grid as it transforms into a smart grid. The program focuses 
on technology development that improves the affordability and 
performance of energy storage and enables a robust suite of 
competitive options for various grid services; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $241,234,515. 

Name of initiative and description: Core Research - Materials Science 
and Engineering: This initiative, implemented by the Office of 
Science's Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES), encompasses research 
activities that support basic science research to provide the 
knowledge base for the discovery and design of new materials for the 
generation, storage, and use of energy and for mitigation of the 
environmental impacts of energy use; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $23,170,874. 

Name of initiative and description: Energy Frontier Research Centers: 
This initiative, implemented by BES, supports basic and advanced 
discovery research to accelerate advanced energy technologies, 
including renewable energy technologies, by combining the talents and 
creativity of the nation's scientific workforce with a powerful new 
generation of tools for penetrating, understanding, and manipulating 
matter on the atomic and molecular scales; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $69,500,000. 

Name of initiative and description: Batteries and Energy Storage 
Energy Innovation Hub: This initiative, implemented by BES, is focused 
on transforming electrochemical energy storage beyond the current 
limits, including the exploration of new materials, architectures, 
systems, and novel approaches for transportation and utility-scale 
storage, by supporting cross-disciplinary research and development; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $20,000,000. 

Name of initiative and description: Batteries for Electrical Energy 
Storage in Transportation[B]: This initiative, implemented by the 
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), seeks to develop a 
new generation of ultra-high energy density, low-cost battery 
technologies for long electric range plug-in hybrid electric vehicles 
and all-electric vehicles; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $36,344,516. 

Name of initiative and description: Grid-Scale Rampable Intermittent 
Dispatchable Storage[B]: This initiative, implemented by ARPA-E, seeks 
to develop new technologies to enable the widespread deployment of 
cost-effective, grid-scale energy storage technologies to balance the 
short-duration variability in renewable generation; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $27,687,068. 

Name of initiative and description: ARPA-E Initial Funding Opportunity 
Announcement--Energy Storage Technologies[B]: This initiative was ARPA-
E's first funding announcement and primarily aimed at prospective 
applicants who already had a relatively well-formed research and 
development plan for a transformational concept or new technology, 
including energy storage technologies, that could make a significant 
contribution toward attainment of the administration's Energy and 
Environment Agenda, if and when successfully deployed; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $33,052,915. 

Name of initiative and description: High Energy Advanced Thermal 
Storage[B]: This initiative, implemented by ARPA-E, seeks to develop 
revolutionary cost-effective thermal energy storage technologies in 
three focus areas: (1) high-temperature storage systems to deliver 
solar electricity more efficiently around the clock and allow nuclear 
and fossil baseload resources the flexibility to meet peak demand; 
(2) fuel produced from the sun's heat; and (3) heating, ventilation, 
and air conditioning systems that use thermal storage to dramatically 
improve the driving range of electric vehicles; Subtotal (actual and 
estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 2012: $37,268,245. 

Name of initiative and description: Advanced Technology Vehicles 
Manufacturing Loan Program: This program, implemented by the Loan 
Programs Office (LPO), provides direct loans to companies making cars 
and components in U.S. factories that increase fuel economy at least 
25 percent above 2005 fuel economy levels; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $29,627,800[D]. 

Name of initiative and description: Title XVII Loan Guarantee 
Program[C]: This program, implemented by LPO, provides loan 
guarantees, under Section 1703, to innovative clean technologies that 
avoid, reduce or sequester air pollutants. Under Section 1705 (now 
sunsetted), the program provided loan guarantees to certain clean 
energy projects, including those employing more mature technologies, 
that began construction prior to September 30, 2011; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $11,065,875[D]. 

Total: 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $851,994,808. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data. 

[A] DOE's OVT also awarded $1.5 billion in funds made available under 
the Recovery Act to 20 projects to support the establishment of 
advanced battery manufacturing and recycling facilities in the United 
States. 

[B] ARPA-E's authorizing legislation, the America Creating 
Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, 
Education, and Science Reauthorization Act of 2007, (Pub. L. No. 110-
69 (2007)) was reauthorized on January 4, 2011, and funding for the 
program was authorized through fiscal year 2013. 

[C] The Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program is in Title XVII of the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005, (Pub. L. No. 109-58 (2005)). The American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 added Section 1705 to Title 
XVII. The Section 1705 initiative had a sunset date of September 30, 
2011. 

[D] These obligations represent the credit subsidy costs associated 
with about $596 million in federal loans supported by DOE for battery 
and energy storage projects. Specifically, the Advanced Technology 
Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program made about $520 million in loans 
and the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program guaranteed about $76 million 
in loans. Loans supported by the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program 
were made by the U.S. Treasury's Federal Financing Bank. Credit 
subsidy costs are the estimated net long-term cost to the government, 
in present value terms, of the loans over the entire period the loans 
are outstanding. Present value is the worth of the future stream of 
returns or costs in terms of money paid immediately. In calculating 
present value, prevailing interest rates provide the basis for 
converting future amounts into their "money now" equivalents. Credit 
subsidy costs exclude administrative costs and any incidental effects 
on governmental receipts or outlays. Officials from DOE's LPO told us 
that one of the battery and energy storage projects under the Title 
XVII Loan Guarantee Program with a loan guarantee commitment for a 
loan of $17 million withdrew from the program reducing the value of 
its loan to zero. As a result, the total amount in loans that DOE 
guaranteed for these technologies under the program was reduced by $17 
million, and the total amount of the program's credit subsidy 
obligations were also reduced by over $830,000. 

[End of table] 

Table 9: Department of Defense Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives 
and Their Total Funding Obligations for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012: 

Name of initiative and description: Army Energy Storage for the 
Soldier: This initiative, implemented by the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, aims 
to provide the warfighter with an ergonomic, lightweight, high energy 
density, soldier-worn battery that can serve as a central power source 
for all worn and carried power consumers; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $16,000,000[A]. 

Name of initiative and description: Army Energy Storage for Basing: 
This initiative, implemented by the Office of the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, examines 
technologies to manage, distribute and store energy in bases of all 
sizes (from tactical contingency bases to large fixed installations). 
These sources require some level of energy storage, especially in the 
development of microgrids and other architectures for power management; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $13,100,000[A]. 

Name of initiative and description: Army Energy Storage for Air and 
Ground Vehicles: This initiative, implemented by the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and 
Technology, conducts research and development to enable hybridization, 
auxiliary power units, and other nonprime power applications; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $80,058,000[A]. 

Name of initiative and description: Navy and Marine Corps Energy 
Storage Science and Technology: This initiative, implemented by the 
Office of Naval Research, Sea Warfare Department (ONR 33), supports 
fundamental and early applied research to identify and develop novel 
materials and device architectures with improved power and energy 
densities over current state-of-the-art technology to address Navy/ 
Marine Corps-unique requirements. The initiative supports applied 
research and prototype development to develop, demonstrate, and 
transition practical devices and systems that exploit novel energy 
storage materials, devices, and designs in practical embodiments to 
Navy/Marine Corps acquisition programs for further maturation and 
fielding; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $80,091,000[A]. 

Name of initiative and description: Navy and Marine Corps Energy 
Storage System Integration: This initiative, implemented by the Naval 
Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems Command, and U.S. Marine Corps, 
conducts applied research, demonstration, and deployment activities to 
enable and develop systems, technologies, processes, and materials to 
allow large format lithium-ion batteries to be carried, installed, 
charged, maintained, and utilized aboard surface ships and submarines, 
enable operational missions supporting the warfighter, and enhance 
mission coverage and capability; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $130,000,000[A]. 

Name of initiative and description: Air Force Basic Research 
Activities in Battery and Storage Technologies: This initiative, 
implemented by the Air Force Research Laboratory, Air Force Office of 
Scientific Research, conducts basic research programs focused on 
advancement and understanding of batteries and storage technologies; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $9,173,000. 

Name of initiative and description: Air Force Wide Temperature 
Capacitor Research and Development: This initiative, implemented by 
the Air Force Research Laboratory-Propulsion Directorate, focuses on 
the development of wide temperature capacitor dielectric materials, 
modeling and simulation of capacitor architectures and geometries, and 
the development of specialized testing capabilities for both 
dielectric materials and packaged capacitors; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $4,515,000. 

Name of initiative and description: Air Force Batteries for Aircraft 
and Directed Energy Weapons: This initiative, implemented by the Air 
Force Research Laboratory-Propulsion Directorate, under the Integrated 
Vehicle Energy Technology program, aims to develop electrochemical 
energy storage systems to provide safe, lightweight electrical power 
for aircraft and directed energy weapons; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $24,436,646. 

Name of initiative and description: Air Force Zinc-Bromide Flow 
Battery: This initiative, implemented by the Air Force Research 
Laboratory-Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, was funded only in 
fiscal year 2010 and supported testing and evaluation of zinc-bromide 
flow batteries for use when connected to a microgrid and solar 
generation system to support the military mission and provide power in 
the event of grid outage; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $3,337,050. 

Name of initiative and description: Air Force Special Purpose Power: 
This initiative, implemented by the Air Force Research Laboratory- 
Propulsion Directorate, supports development of novel power systems 
and technologies for specialized Air Force applications. Specific 
applications include: airman portable power systems and unmanned 
aerial vehicle power/propulsion systems; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $11,663,000. 

Name of initiative and description: Air Force Advanced Materials for 
Energy Storage Applications: This initiative, implemented by the Air 
Force Research Laboratory-Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, 
supports fundamental, as well as applied research and development 
efforts to develop a variety of high-performance materials and 
manufacturing technologies necessary to increase the performance of 
next generation energy storage devices, such as batteries and 
capacitors, for a variety of military applications; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $22,590,000[A]. 

Name of initiative and description: Air Force Batteries for Space-
Based Vehicles: This initiative, implemented by the Air Force Research 
Laboratory-Space Vehicles Directorate, aims to develop energy storage 
systems (batteries and ultracapacitors) to meet the needs of DOD space-
based assets, to include high specific energy and power, long cycle 
life, and improved depth of discharge; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $7,669,579. 

Name of initiative and description: DARPA Revolutionary Portable 
Energy Storage for the Warfighter: This initiative, implemented by the 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), aimed to solve high-
risk, DOD mission-critical portable power and energy challenges that 
are unique to DOD, not adequately addressed by the commercial market, 
and lie beyond the capabilities, scope, and risk level of other DOD 
organizations; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $14,662,444. 

Name of initiative and description: ESTCP Installation Energy Test 
Bed: This initiative, implemented by the Office of the Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, Environmental 
Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), demonstrates 
renewable energy, energy efficiency, energy management, and energy 
storage technologies. Energy storage technologies are demonstrated in 
the context of microgrids that will enable grid-compatible operation, 
improve efficiency of an installation's power network, and enable 
increased use of distributed generation, especially renewable energy 
sources; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $12,978,510[A]. 

Total: 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $430,274,229. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data. 

[A] All or part of the agency-provided obligations are estimated. For 
example, Army officials told us that it was hard to break out 
obligations for rechargeable batteries from obligations for all 
batteries--including nonrechargeable batteries--supported under its 
initiatives. Therefore, Army officials' reported obligations were an 
overestimate of the actual amount obligated for rechargeable batteries. 

[End of table] 

Table 10: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Battery and 
Energy Storage Initiatives and Their Total Funding Obligations for 
Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012: 

Name of initiative and description: Prognostics Algorithm Development: 
This initiative, implemented by Ames Research Center, investigates 
algorithms to estimate the state of health, and remaining life of 
components, and applies it to batteries, including lithium-ion 
batteries. The key goal of this initiative is to develop and mature 
the science of prognostics for systems health management in aerospace 
applications; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $500,000[A]. 

Name of initiative and description: Night Rover Challenge: This 
initiative, implemented by the Office of the Chief Technologist's 
Centennial Challenges Program, is a $1.5 million prize purse 
competition to develop an energy storage system that can store at 
least 500 watt-hours per kilogram; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $1,500,000. 

Name of initiative and description: Silicon Nano-Wire Anode: This 
initiative, implemented by the Office of the Chief Technologist, seeks 
to adapt proven, breakthrough battery technology relying on 
nanostructured silicon anodes (silicon nanowire technology) to the 
extreme environments of space applications; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $1,200,000. 

Name of initiative and description: Space Power Systems Project: This 
initiative, implemented by the Office of the Chief Technologist, Game 
Changing Development Program, seeks to improve the performance of 
secondary lithium-ion battery cells to meet the energy storage 
requirements of human space missions by developing advanced battery 
components that safely provide substantially higher specific energy 
and energy density than is currently available; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $13,422,620. 

Name of initiative and description: Flywheel Energy Storage and 
Momentum Control: This initiative, implemented by Glenn Research 
Center, conducts applied research to develop and demonstrate unique 
NASA cross-cutting flywheel technology for space and terrestrial 
applications and commercialize the technology through direct 
partnership with industry and intellectual property licensing; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $3,008,754[A]. 

Name of initiative and description: Aerospace Lithium-Ion Cell 
Qualification Program: This initiative, implemented by Goddard Space 
Flight Center, performs cell characterization tests followed by 
simulated life cycling regimes at both low Earth orbit and 
geosynchronous Earth orbit of large prismatic lithium-ion cells from 
several vendors to qualify them for aerospace use; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $80,000. 

Name of initiative and description: Lithium-Ion COTS Battery 
Surveillance: This program, implemented by Johnson Space Center, 
involves a surveillance of state-of-the-art commercial-off-the-shelf 
(COTS) lithium-ion battery cells. Lithium-ion cells are purchased and 
undergo a stringent set of performance and safety tests to determine 
their suitability for space applications in a human-rated environment. 
The information collected enables quick design, buildup, and test at 
the battery level (as cell level data is already existent through this 
program). This initiative also included studies of polymer lithium-ion 
cells and in-depth study of issues encountered in the battery industry 
with respect to safety; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $850,000. 

Name of initiative and description: NASA Space Act Agreement with 
Underwriters Laboratories: This initiative, implemented by Johnson 
Space Center, aims to obtain a standard for simulating internal shorts 
in lithium-ion batteries for various applications; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $250,000. 

Total: 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $20,811,374. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data. 

[A] All or part of the agency-provided obligations are estimated. 

[End of table] 

Table 11: National Science Foundation Battery and Energy Storage 
Initiatives and Their Total Funding Obligations for Fiscal Years 2009 
through 2012: 

Name of initiative and description: Energy for Sustainability: This 
initiative, implemented by the Directorate for Engineering, supports 
fundamental research and education that will enable innovative 
processes for the sustainable production of electricity and 
transportation fuels. One research interest area is on high-energy 
density and high-power density batteries suitable for transportation 
applications; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: Information not available[A]. 

Name of initiative and description: Energy, Power, and Adaptive 
Systems: This initiative, implemented by the Directorate for 
Engineering, supports the design and study of intelligent and adaptive 
engineering networks with an emphasis on electric power electronics, 
networks, and grids. The initiative also supports laboratory and 
curriculum development to integrate research and education; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $2,582,868. 

Name of initiative and description: Sustainable Energy Pathways: This 
initiative, implemented by the Directorate for Engineering, is part of 
a broader agency initiative that supports innovative, 
interdisciplinary, basic research in science, engineering, and 
education by teams of researchers for developing systems approaches to 
sustainable energy pathways based on a comprehensive understanding of 
the scientific, technical, environmental, economic, and societal 
issues; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: Information not available[B]. 

Name of initiative and description: Renewable Energy Storage: This 
initiative, implemented by the Emerging Frontiers in Research and 
Innovation Office, supported basic research projects that invested in, 
and could potentially transform, the field of renewable energy storage; 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $6,000,000. 

Total: 
Subtotal (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $8,582,868. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data. 

[A] NSF officials reported that information on obligations for battery-
related research awards was not available at the time of our review 
because the initiative's review/award process was still under way. 
They told us that funding for the Energy for Sustainability Program 
was about $13 million for fiscal year 2012. The program covers a 
variety of topics ranging from solar, wind, biofuels, and battery 
research. Officials told us that, based on the quality of the received 
proposals, and other factors, they anticipate there will be some 
battery-related research awards made during fiscal year 2012. 

[B] NSF officials from this initiative reported that information on 
obligations in the area of batteries and energy storage technologies 
will not be known until awards are made. 

[End of table] 

Table 12: Environmental Protection Agency Battery and Energy Storage 
Initiatives and Their Total Funding Obligations for Fiscal Years 2009 
through 2012: 

Name of initiative and description: High-Pressure Accumulator Energy 
Storage for Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicles: This initiative, implemented by 
the Office of Transportation and Air Quality's Clean Automotive 
Technology Program, aims to develop a safe, low-cost, light weight, 
high-efficiency energy storage system for use in hydraulic hybrid 
passenger vehicles and heavy commercial trucks;
Total (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $3,258,029. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data. 

[End of table] 

Table 13: National Institute of Standards and Technology Battery and 
Energy Storage Initiatives and Their Total Funding Obligations for 
Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012: 

Name of initiative and description: Development of Measurement Methods 
and Devices to Characterize Electrochemical Energy Storage and 
Conversion Devices at the Nanoscale: This single project, within the 
Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, supports basic research 
to develop new tools and measurement systems to characterize the 
chemical and physical transformations that occur at the nanoscale in 
electrochemical energy storage devices; 
Total (actual and estimated) obligations fiscal years 2009 through 
2012: $1,375,000[A]. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data. 

[A] All or part of the agency-provided obligations are estimated. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Selected Questionnaire Responses for Federal Battery and 
Energy Storage Technology Initiatives: 

We identified 39 initiatives across six agencies that supported 
batteries and other energy storage technologies through basic 
research, applied research, demonstrations, commercialization, and 
deployment activities. We developed a questionnaire about the 
initiatives and submitted it to the agencies. Tables 14, 15, 16, 17, 
18, 19, and 20 provide selected questionnaire responses for the 
initiatives in each agency. We are reporting responses that elaborate 
on our report findings. 

Table 14: Department of Energy Selected Questionnaire Responses for 
Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives: 

Key: 
1. Advanced lead-acid; 
2. Basic energy storage research; 
3. Capacitors; 
4. Compressed air energy storage; 
5. Flywheels; 
6. Lithium-ion batteries; 
7. Lithium-metal batteries; 
8. Metal-air batteries; 
9. Redox flow batteries; 
10. Sodium batteries; 
11. Other; 
12. Auxiliary power for vehicles; 
13. Ground-based vehicle propulsion; 
14. Other vehicle propulsion; 
15. Personal electronics; 
16. Stationary power storage; 
17. Weapon systems; 
18. Other; 
19. Basic research; 
20. Applied research; 
21. Demonstrations; 
22. Commercialization; 
23. Deployment; 
24. Other. 

Initiative: OVT Vehicle Technologies Energy Storage Research and 
Development; 
Technologies: 
1: [Check]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Check]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Check]; 
13: [Check]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

OE Energy Storage Program; 
Technologies: 
1: [Check]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Check]; 
5: [Check]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Check]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Check]; 
10: [Check]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Check]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: BES Core Research - Materials Science and Engineering; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Check]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Empty]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Check]; 
20: [Empty]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Check]. 

Initiative: BES Energy Frontier Research Centers; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Check]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Empty]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Check]; 
20: [Empty]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Check]. 

Initiative: BES Batteries and Energy Storage Energy Innovation Hub; 
Technologies: 
1: [Check]; 
2: [Check]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Check]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Check]; 
10: [Check]; 
11: [Check]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Check]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Check];
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Check]; 
20: [Empty]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Check]. 

Initiative: ARPA-E Batteries for Electrical Energy Storage in 
Transportation; 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Check]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Check]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Check]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Check]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Check]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: ARPA-E Grid-Scale Rampable Intermittent Dispatchable 
Storage; 
Technologies: 
1: [Check]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Check]; 
5: [Check]; 
6: [Empty]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Check]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Check]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Check]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Check]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: ARPA-E Initial Funding Opportunity Announcement - Energy 
Storage Technologies; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Check]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Check]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Check]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Check]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: ARPA-E High Energy Advanced Thermal Storage; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Empty]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Check]; 
Uses: 
12: [Check]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Check]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Check]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: LPO Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan 
Program; 
Technologies: 
1: [Check]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Check]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Check]; 
10: [Check]; 
11: [Check]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Check]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Empty]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Check]; 
23: [Check]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: LPO Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program; 
Technologies: 
1: [Check]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Check]; 
5: [Check]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Check]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Check]; 
10: [Check]; 
11: [Check]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Check]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Check]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Empty]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Check]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Total; 
Technologies: 
1: 6; 
2: 3; 
3: 5; 
4: 3; 
5: 3; 
6: 7; 
7: 5; 
8: 8; 
9: 6; 
10: 5; 
11: 7; 
Uses: 
12: 2; 
13: 6; 
14: 0; 
15: 0; 
16: 6; 
17: 0; 
18: 2; 
[Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: 3; 
20: 6; 
21: 1; 
22: 6; 
23: 1; 
24: 3. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results. 

[End of table] 

Table 15: Department of Defense Selected Questionnaire Responses for 
Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives: 

Key: 
1. Advanced lead-acid; 
2. Basic energy storage research; 
3. Capacitors; 
4. Compressed air energy storage; 
5. Flywheels; 
6. Lithium-ion batteries; 
7. Lithium-metal batteries; 
8. Metal-air batteries; 
9. Redox flow batteries; 
10. Sodium batteries; 
11. Other; 
12. Auxiliary power for vehicles; 
13. Ground-based vehicle propulsion; 
14. Other vehicle propulsion; 
15. Personal electronics; 
16. Stationary power storage; 
17. Weapon systems; 
18. Other; 
19. Basic research; 
20. Applied research; 
21. Demonstrations; 
22. Commercialization; 
23. Deployment; 
24. Other. 

Initiative: Army Energy Storage for the Soldier; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Check]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Check]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Check]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Check]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Check]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Check]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Army Energy Storage for Basing; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Check]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Check]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Check]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Army Energy Storage for Air and Ground Vehicles; 
Technologies: 
1: [Check]; 
2: [Check]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Check]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Check]; 
13: [Check]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Check]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Navy and Marine Corps Energy Storage Science and 
Technology; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Check]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Check]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Check]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Check]; 
13: [Check]; 
14: [Check]; 
15: [Check]; 
16: [Check]; 
17: [Check]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Check]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Navy and Marine Corps Energy Storage System Integration; 
Technologies: 
1: [Check]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Check]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Check]; 
11: [Check]; 
Uses: 
12: [Check]; 
13: [Check]; 
14: [Check]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Check]; 
17: [Check]; 
18: [Check]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Check]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Air Force Basic Research Activities in Battery and Storage 
Technologies; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Check]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Empty]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Check]; 
20: [Empty]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Air Force Wide Temperature Capacitor Research and 
Development; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Check]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Empty]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Check]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Check]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Check]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Air Force Batteries for Aircraft and Directed Energy 
Weapons; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Check]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Check]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Check]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Check]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Check]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Air Force Zinc-Bromide Flow Battery; 
Technologies: 
1: [Check]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Empty]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Check]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Check]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Check]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Empty]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Check]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Air Force Special Purpose Power; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Check]; 
15: [Check]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Check]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Air Force Advanced Materials for Energy Storage 
Applications; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Check]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Check]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Check]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Check]; 
Uses: 
12: [Check]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Check]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Check]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Air Force Batteries for Space-Based Vehicles; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Check]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Check]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Check]. 

Initiative: DARPA Revolutionary Portable Energy Storage for the 
Warfighter; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Check]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Check]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Check]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Check]; 
14: [Check]; 
15: [Check]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Check]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Check]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Check]; 
23: [Check]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: ESTCP Installation Energy Test Bed; 
Technologies: 
1: [Check]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Check]; 
11: [Check]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Check]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Empty]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Total; 
Technologies: 
1: 4; 
2: 8; 
3: 9; 
4: 0; 
5: 0; 
6: 11; 
7: 7; 
8: 8; 
9: 2; 
10: 3; 
11: 4; 
Uses: 
12: 7; 
13: 5; 
14: 8; 
15: 4; 
16: 5; 
17: 6; 
18: 2; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: 6; 
20: 11; 
21: 10; 
22: 2; 
23: 5; 
24: 1. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results. 

[End of table] 

Table 16: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Selected 
Questionnaire Responses for Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives: 

Key: 
1. Advanced lead-acid; 
2. Basic energy storage research; 
3. Capacitors; 
4. Compressed air energy storage; 
5. Flywheels; 
6. Lithium-ion batteries; 
7. Lithium-metal batteries; 
8. Metal-air batteries; 
9. Redox flow batteries; 
10. Sodium batteries; 
11. Other; 
12. Auxiliary power for vehicles; 
13. Ground-based vehicle propulsion; 
14. Other vehicle propulsion; 
15. Personal electronics; 
16. Stationary power storage; 
17. Weapon systems; 
18. Other; 
19. Basic research; 
20. Applied research; 
21. Demonstrations; 
22. Commercialization; 
23. Deployment; 
24. Other. 

Initiative: Prognostics Algorithm Development; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Check]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Check]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Check]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Night Rover Challenge; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Empty]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Silicon Nano-Wire Anode; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Check]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Check]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Space Power Systems Project; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Check]; 
13: [Check]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Check]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Flywheel Energy Storage and Momentum Control; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Check]; 
6: [Empty]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Check]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Check]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Check]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Aerospace Lithium-Ion Cell Qualification Program; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Check]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Check]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Lithium-Ion COTS Battery Surveillance; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Check]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Check]; 
13: [Check]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Check]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Check]; 
23: [Check]; 
24: [Check]. 

Initiative: NASA Space Act Agreement with Underwriters Laboratories; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Check]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Check]; 
13: [Check]; 
14: [Check]; 
15: [Check]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Check]; 
23: [Check]; 
24: [Check]. 

Initiative: Total; 
Technologies: 
1: 0; 
2: 0; 
3: 1; 
4: 0; 
5: 1; 
6: 6; 
7: 2; 
8: 1; 
9: 0; 
10: 0; 
11: 0; 
Uses: 
12: 4; 
13: 3; 
14: 4; 
15: 2; 
16: 1; 
17: 0; 
18: 3; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: 1; 
20: 8; 
21: 7; 
22: 3; 
23: 3; 
24: 2. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results. 

[End of table] 

Table 17: National Science Foundation Selected Questionnaire Responses 
for Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives: 

Key: 
1. Advanced lead-acid; 
2. Basic energy storage research; 
3. Capacitors; 
4. Compressed air energy storage; 
5. Flywheels; 
6. Lithium-ion batteries; 
7. Lithium-metal batteries; 
8. Metal-air batteries; 
9. Redox flow batteries; 
10. Sodium batteries; 
11. Other; 
12. Auxiliary power for vehicles; 
13. Ground-based vehicle propulsion; 
14. Other vehicle propulsion; 
15. Personal electronics; 
16. Stationary power storage; 
17. Weapon systems; 
18. Other; 
19. Basic research; 
20. Applied research; 
21. Demonstrations; 
22. Commercialization; 
23. Deployment; 
24. Other. 

Initiative: Energy for Sustainability; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Check]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Check]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Check]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Check]; 
20: [Empty]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Energy, Power, and Adaptive Systems; 
Technologies: 
1: [Check]; 
2: [Check]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Check]; 
8: [Check]; 
9: [Check]; 
10: [Check]; 
11: [Check]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Check]; 
20: [Empty]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Sustainable Energy Pathways; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Empty]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Check]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Check]; 
20: [Empty]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Renewable Energy Storage; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Check]; 
3: [Check]; 
4: [Check]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Check]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Check]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Check]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Total; 
Technologies: 
1: 1; 
2: 3; 
3: 2; 
4: 1; 
5: 0; 
6: 3; 
7: 2; 
8: 2; 
9: 1; 
10: 1; 
11: 3; 
Uses: 
12: 0; 
13: 1; 
14: 0; 
15: 0; 
16: 1; 
17: 0; 
18: 0; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: 4; 
20: 1; 
21: 0; 
22: 0; 
23: 0; 
24: 0. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results. 

[End of table] 

Table 18: Environmental Protection Agency Selected Questionnaire 
Responses for Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives: 

Key: 
1. Advanced lead-acid; 
2. Basic energy storage research; 
3. Capacitors; 
4. Compressed air energy storage; 
5. Flywheels; 
6. Lithium-ion batteries; 
7. Lithium-metal batteries; 
8. Metal-air batteries; 
9. Redox flow batteries; 
10. Sodium batteries; 
11. Other; 
12. Auxiliary power for vehicles; 
13. Ground-based vehicle propulsion; 
14. Other vehicle propulsion; 
15. Personal electronics; 
16. Stationary power storage; 
17. Weapon systems; 
18. Other; 
19. Basic research; 
20. Applied research; 
21. Demonstrations; 
22. Commercialization; 
23. Deployment; 
24. Other. 

Initiative: High-Pressure Accumulator Energy Storage for Hydraulic 
Hybrid Vehicles; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Empty]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Check]; 
Uses: 
12: [Check]; 
13: [Check]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Check]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Check]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Empty]; 
20: [Check]; 
21: [Check]; 
22: [Check]; 
23: [Check]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Total; 
Technologies: 
1: 0; 
2: 0; 
3: 0; 
4: 0; 
5: 0; 
6: 0; 
7: 0; 
8: 0; 
9: 0; 
10: 0; 
11: 1; 
Uses: 
12: 1; 
13: 1; 
14: 0; 
15: 0; 
16: 1; 
17: 0; 
18: 1; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: 0; 
20: 1; 
21: 1; 
22: 1; 
23: 1; 
24: 0. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results. 

[End of table] 

Table 19: National Institute of Standards and Technology Selected 
Questionnaire Responses for Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives: 

Key: 
1. Advanced lead-acid; 
2. Basic energy storage research; 
3. Capacitors; 
4. Compressed air energy storage; 
5. Flywheels; 
6. Lithium-ion batteries; 
7. Lithium-metal batteries; 
8. Metal-air batteries; 
9. Redox flow batteries; 
10. Sodium batteries; 
11. Other; 
12. Auxiliary power for vehicles; 
13. Ground-based vehicle propulsion; 
14. Other vehicle propulsion; 
15. Personal electronics; 
16. Stationary power storage; 
17. Weapon systems; 
18. Other; 
19. Basic research; 
20. Applied research; 
21. Demonstrations; 
22. Commercialization; 
23. Deployment; 
24. Other. 

Initiative: Development of Measurement Methods and Devices to 
Characterize Electrochemical Energy Storage and Conversion Devices at 
the Nanoscale; 
Technologies: 
1: [Empty]; 
2: [Empty]; 
3: [Empty]; 
4: [Empty]; 
5: [Empty]; 
6: [Check]; 
7: [Empty]; 
8: [Empty]; 
9: [Empty]; 
10: [Empty]; 
11: [Empty]; 
Uses: 
12: [Empty]; 
13: [Empty]; 
14: [Empty]; 
15: [Empty]; 
16: [Empty]; 
17: [Empty]; 
18: [Empty]; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: [Check]; 
20: [Empty]; 
21: [Empty]; 
22: [Empty]; 
23: [Empty]; 
24: [Empty]. 

Initiative: Total; 
Technologies: 
1: 0; 
2: 0; 
3: 0; 
4: 0; 
5: 0; 
6: 1; 
7: 0; 
8: 0; 
9: 0; 
10: 0; 
11: 0; 
Uses: 
12: 0; 
13: 0; 
14: 0; 
15: 0; 
16: 0; 
17: 0; 
18: 0; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: 1; 
20: 0; 
21: 0; 
22: 0; 
23: 0; 
24: 0. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results. 

[End of table] 

Table 20: Total for All Agencies--Selected Questionnaire Responses for 
Federal Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives: 

Key: 
1. Advanced lead-acid; 
2. Basic energy storage research; 
3. Capacitors; 
4. Compressed air energy storage; 
5. Flywheels; 
6. Lithium-ion batteries; 
7. Lithium-metal batteries; 
8. Metal-air batteries; 
9. Redox flow batteries; 
10. Sodium batteries; 
11. Other; 
12. Auxiliary power for vehicles; 
13. Ground-based vehicle propulsion; 
14. Other vehicle propulsion; 
15. Personal electronics; 
16. Stationary power storage; 
17. Weapon systems; 
18. Other; 
19. Basic research; 
20. Applied research; 
21. Demonstrations; 
22. Commercialization; 
23. Deployment; 
24. Other. 

Agency: DOE; 
Technologies: 
1: 6; 
2: 3; 
3: 5; 
4: 3; 
5: 3; 
6: 7; 
7: 5; 
8: 8; 
9: 6; 
10: 5; 
11: 7; 
Uses: 
12: 2; 
13: 6; 
14: 0; 
15: 0; 
16: 6; 
17: 0; 
18: 2; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: 3; 
20: 6; 
21: 1; 
22: 6; 
23: 1; 
24: 3. 

Agency: DOD; 
Technologies: 
1: 4; 
2: 8; 
3: 9; 
4: 0; 
5: 0; 
6: 11; 
7: 7; 
8: 8; 
9: 2; 
10: 3; 
11: 4; 
Uses: 
12: 7; 
13: 5; 
14: 8; 
15: 4; 
16: 5; 
17: 6; 
18: 2; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: 6; 
20: 11; 
21: 10; 
22: 2; 
23: 5; 
24: 1. 

Agency: NASA; 
Technologies: 
1: 0; 
2: 0; 
3: 1; 
4: 0; 
5: 1; 
6: 6; 
7: 2; 
8: 1; 
9: 0; 
10: 0; 
11: 0; 
Uses: 
12: 4; 
13: 3; 
14: 4; 
15: 2; 
16: 1; 
17: 0; 
18: 3; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: 1; 
20: 8; 
21: 7; 
22: 3; 
23: 3; 
24: 2. 

Agency: NSF; 
Technologies: 
1: 1; 
2: 3; 
3: 2; 
4: 1; 
5: 0; 
6: 3; 
7: 2; 
8: 2; 
9: 1; 
10: 1; 
11: 3; 
Uses: 
12: 0; 
13: 1; 
14: 0; 
15: 0; 
16: 1; 
17: 0; 
18: 0; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: 4; 
20: 1; 
21: 0; 
22: 0; 
23: 0; 
24: 0. 

Agency: EPA; 
Technologies: 
1: 0; 
2: 0; 
3: 0; 
4: 0; 
5: 0; 
6: 0; 
7: 0; 
8: 0; 
9: 0; 
10: 0; 
11: 1; 
Uses: 
12: 1; 
13: 1; 
14: 0; 
15: 0; 
16: 1; 
17: 0; 
18: 1; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: 0; 
20: 1; 
21: 1; 
22: 1; 
23: 1; 
24: 0. 

Agency: NIST; 
Technologies: 
1: 0; 
2: 0; 
3: 0; 
4: 0; 
5: 0; 
6: 1; 
7: 0; 
8: 0; 
9: 0; 
10: 0; 
11: 0; 
Uses: 
12: 0; 
13: 0; 
14: 0; 
15: 0; 
16: 0; 
17: 0; 
18: 0; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: 1; 
20: 0; 
21: 0; 
22: 0; 
23: 0; 
24: 0. 

Agency: Total; 
Technologies: 
1: 11; 
2: 14; 
3: 17; 
4: 4; 
5: 4; 
6: 28; 
7: 16; 
8: 19; 
9: 9; 
10: 9; 
11: 15; 
Uses: 
12: 14; 
13: 16; 
14: 12; 
15: 6; 
16: 14; 
17: 6; 
18: 8; 
Technology advancement activities: 
19: 15; 
20: 27; 
21: 19; 
22: 12; 
23: 10; 
24: 6. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO's Questionnaire for Federal Agencies with Battery and 
Energy Storage Initiatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Questions About Federal Battery and Energy Storage Technology-Related 
Initiatives: [Pre-Populated Information] 

Introduction: 

The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), an 
independent, legislative branch agency, is examining federal 
government initiatives to support basic and applied research, 
demonstration, and commercialization of battery and energy storage 
technologies (GAO job code 361332). Battery and energy storage 
technology-related initiatives are those that could or do support such 
technologies, either exclusively or as part of a broader initiative. 
GAO is undertaking this work at the request of the Chairman of the 
House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. This work has three 
objectives: (1) to identify the key characteristics of battery and 
energy storage technology-related initiatives supported by federal 
agencies; (2) to determine the extent of any potential fragmentation, 
overlap, or duplication of federal battery and energy storage-related 
initiatives; and (3) to examine the extent to which federal agencies 
coordinate to achieve common goals for their battery and energy 
storage-related initiatives. 

The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect information on key 
characteristics of your battery and energy storage technology-related 
initiative, funding, and coordination activities during fiscal years 
2009 through 2012. Our review focuses on a variety of rechargeable 
(i.e. secondary) batteries and other energy storage technologies that 
include, but are not limited, to capacitors, flywheels, and compressed 
air energy storage (CAES). The term "technologies" encompasses full 
systems, as well as subsystems, components, and power management 
approaches for these energy storage technologies; for example battery 
components, battery cells and packs, and battery power management 
systems. Our review excludes nonrechargeable (i.e. primary) batteries, 
fuel cells, and radioisotope thermoelectric generators. 

After we receive your response, we will follow up with pertinent 
agency official(s), if needed, to discuss and clarify any outstanding 
questions about the initiative as they relate to the objectives stated 
above. 

Please complete all four sections and return it to one of the 
individuals named below by March 30, 2012. When returning the 
questionnaire, please attach any relevant supporting documentation to 
your e-mail. 

If you have any questions or comments about this questionnaire, please 
contact Perry Lusk at (202) 512-3731 or Luskp@gao.gov. Thank you very 
much for your assistance. 

Instructions: 

This questionnaire can be completed using MS-Word and returned via e-
mail to Luskp@gao.gov. Please complete this questionnaire and return 
it by March 30, 2012. 

1) Please provide the information listed at the end of Section I for 
the battery and energy storage technology-related initiative. 

2) Use your mouse to navigate by clicking on the box or check box you 
wish to answer. 

3) To select a check box, click on the center of the box, and an 'X' 
will appear. 

4) To deselect a check box response, click on the center of the box, 
and the 'X' will disappear. 

5) To answer a question that requires a comment, click on the answer 
box and begin typing. 

The box will expand to accommodate your answer. 

Section I: General Information For Initiative: 

We identified your agency and office as having a battery and energy 
storage technology-related initiative. We are interested in your 
initiative's activities from fiscal years 2009 through fiscal
year 2012. 

We understand that different agencies may use different terms to 
describe the various topics that we discuss in this questionnaire. For 
the purposes of this questionnaire, we have developed the following 
definitions: 

* Battery and energy storage technologies include, but are not limited 
to, rechargeable (i.e. secondary) batteries, capacitors, and 
flywheels. The term "technologies" encompasses full systems, as well 
as subsystems, components, and power management approaches far these 
energy storage technologies; for example, battery components, battery 
cells and packs, and battery power management systems. Our review 
excludes nonrechargeable (i.e. primary) batteries, fuel cells, and 
radioisotope thermoelectric generators. 

* Initiative is a group of agency activities serving a similar purpose 
or function, such as a program or mission area. 

* Battery and energy storage technology-related initiatives are those 
initiatives that could or do support battery and energy storage 
technologies, either exclusively or as part of a broader initiative. 

* Individual projects exist as part of an overall initiative—for 
example, specific grant awards, or agreements, in-house research 
activities, or contracts that are supported by your initiative. 

* Technology advancement activities may involve one or more of the 
following activities:
- Basic research includes efforts to explore and define scientific or 
engineering concepts or is conducted to investigate the nature of a 
subject without targeting any specific technology.
- Applied research includes efforts to develop new scientific or 
engineering knowledge to create new and improved technologies. 
- Demonstration activities include efforts to operate new or improved 
technologies to collect information on their performance and assess 
their readiness for widespread use. 
- Commercialization includes efforts to bridge the gap between 
research and demonstration activities, and venture capital funding and 
marketing activities, through transitioning technologies to commercial 
applications. 
- Deployment includes efforts to facilitate or achieve widespread use of
technologies either in the commercial market or for federal agencies' 
use. 

We have excluded from our review any battery and energy storage 
technology-related initiatives supporting solely deployment. In 
addition, we are not reviewing activities involving agency-owned 
assets such as fleets or facilities. 

Please provide the information listed below for the battery and energy 
storage technology-related initiative. 

Initiative Title: 
Implementing Agency: 
Implementing Office: 
Description of Initiative: 

Section II: Key Characteristics Of Initiative: 

For the purposes of this questionnaire, we consider an initiative to 
be a group of agency activities serving a similar purpose or function, 
such as a program or mission area An initiative is considered -active" 
if it was planned or funded or implemented or authorized in the fiscal 
year described. 

1) We understand that your initiative may support battery and energy 
storage technology advancement activities as well as other activities. 
Was this initiative active—-for either battery and energy storage any 
other activities—at your agency at any or time during fiscal years 
2009 through 2012? 

a) FY 2009: 
Yes: 
No: 

b) FY 2010: 
Yes: 
No: 

c) FY 2011: 
Yes: 
No: 

d) FY 2012: 
Yes: 
No: 

If you checked No to any of the fiscal years above, please explain in 
the space below why the initiative was not active in that year. For 
example, if the initiative was defunded. 

2) We understand that each agency defines technology advancement 
activities in a unique manner; however, in order to compare activities 
across agencies, we have developed definitions that can be applied 
broadly and have listed them below. Please determine which 
definition(s) best fit your individual initiative and answer for all 
of the initiative's activities, if applicable not only for those that 
are battery and energy storage-related. 

Does your initiative support any of the following technology 
advancement activities? Please check Yes or No for each activity. 

a) Basic research: Basic research includes efforts to explore and 
define scientific or engineering concepts or is conducted to 
investigate the nature of a subject without targeting any specific 
technology. 
Yes: 
No: 

b) Applied research: Applied research includes efforts to develop new 
scientific or engineering knowledge to create new and unproved 
technologies. 
Yes: 
No: 

c) Demonstration activities: Demonstration acclivities include efforts 
to operate new or improved technologies to collect information on 
their performance and assess their readiness for widespread use. 
Yes: 
No: 

d) Commercialization: Commercialization includes efforts to bridge the 
gap between research and demonstration activities, and venture capital 
finding and marketing activities, through transitioning technologies 
to commercial applications.
Yes: 
No: 

e) Deployment: Deployment includes efforts to facilitate or achieve 
widespread use of technologies either in the commercial market or for 
federal agencies' use. 
Yes: 
No: 

f) Other [Please specify below]: 
Yes: 
No: 

3) Does your initiative support any of the following battery and 
energy storage technologies? 

Battery and energy storage technologies encompass full systems, as 
well as subsystems, components, and power management approaches for 
these energy storage technologies; for example, development of 
rechargeable (i.e. secondary) battery components, battery cells and 
packs, and battery power management systems. 

Please check Yes or No for each activity. 

a) Rechargeable (i.e. secondary) batteries; 
Yes: 
No: 
Does your initiative support any of the following types of 
rechargeable batteries? 
a) Advanced lead-acid batteries: 
Yes: 
No: 
b) Lithium-ion batteries: 
Yes: 
No: 
c) Lithium-metal batteries: 
Yes: 
No: 
d) Metal-air batteries: 
Yes: 
No: 
e) Redox flow batteries: 
Yes: 
No: 
f) Sodium batteries: 
Yes: 
No: 
g) Other batteries: 
Yes: 
No: 
If you answered Other batteries, please describe: 
 
b) Basic energy storage research: 
Yes: 
No: 

c) Capacitors: 
Yes: 
No: 

d) Compressed air energy storage (CAES):
Yes: 
No: 

e) Flywheels: 
Yes: 
No: 

f) Pumped storage hydro: 
Yes: 
No: 

g) Other: 
Yes: 
No: 

If you answered Other, please describe in the space below. 
 
4) We understand that some initiatives support basic research, which 
may not have a particular battery and energy storage technology use in 
mind. Does support specific technology uses? Please see the table 
below for examples your initiative. 
Yes: 
No:  

If you answered No, please explain the types of research your 
initiative 
support in the space below: 
below: does your initiative 

If you answered Yes, which of the following technology uses, if any, 
does your initiative support?  

Please check Yes or No for each technology use: 
If you checked yes, please describe examples of the technology uses: 

a) Personal-use electronics power: Internal power for small mobile 
electronic devices; for example, laptops, cell phones, and handheld 
radios. 
Yes: 
No: 

b) Large-scale stationary power storage: Energy storage for stationary 
electricity generation and distribution systems that provide power to 
a large area for a large number of user, for example, the U.S. power 
grid or large military installations. 
Yes: 
No: 

c) Small-scale stationary power storage: Energy, storage for 
stationary electricity generation and distribution systems that 
provide power to a small area for a limited number of users, for 
example, forward operating bases or microgrids. 
Yes: 
No: 

d) Ground-based vehicle propulsion: Power for propulsion of vehicles 
that travel along the ground, whether on earth or other planets; for 
example electric and hybrid cars, tanks exploration rovers. 
Yes: 
No: 

e) Propulsion for other vehicles: Power for propulsion of vehicles 
that travel in the air, space, underwater, or on the surface of the 
water, for example aircraft, submarines, and boats. 
Yes: 
No: 

f) Auxiliary power for vehicles: Power, for uses other than 
propulsion, for vehicles; for example, navigation, communication, and 
other equipment. 
Yes: 
No: 

g) Weapon systems: Power for weapons and components necessary for 
their operation such as targeting and guidance devices.  

h) Other: 
Yes: 
No: 

5) Does your initiative directly perform technology advancement 
activities, such as research, for batteries and energy storage in-house?
Yes: 
No: 

6) Does your initiative provide assistance to recipients to perform 
technology advancement activities for batteries and energy storage?
Yes: 
No: 

If you answered Yes, what type(s) of assistance does your initiative 
provide? Please check Yes or No for each activity. 

a) Cooperative agreements: 
Yes: 
No: 

b) Contracts: 
Yes: 
No: 

c) Grants: 
Yes: 
No: 

d) Direct loans: 
Yes: 
No: 

e) Interagency agreements: 
Yes: 
No: 

f) Loan guarantees: 
Yes: 
No: 

g) Tax credits: 
Yes: 
No: 

h) Other: 
Yes: 
No: 

If you answered Other, please describe the other type(s) of assistance 
that your initiative provides in the space below. 

7) What type(s) of recipients are eligible to receive assistance from 
your initiative? 

Please check Yes or No for each activity: 

a) Department of Defense labs: 
Yes: 
No: 

b) Department of Energy national labs: 
Yes: 
No: 

c) Other federal government labs: 
Yes: 
No: 

d) Industry: 
Yes: 
No: 

e) Universities: 
Yes: 
No: 

f) Other: 
Yes: 
No: 

If you answered Other, please describe the other type(s) of recipients 
that your initiative funds in the space below: 

8) As part of our reporting to Congress, we would like to provide a 
few examples of projects that have been funded. In 800 or fewer 
characters, please briefly describe in the space below two or three 
examples of specific battery and energy storage technology-related 
projects funded or supported by this initiative: 

a. Project #1: 
b. Project #2: 
c. Project #3: 

Section III: Goals And Performance Measures For Initiative:  

9) Please describe your initiative's mission and overarching goals:  

10) Has your initiative established goals that are directly related to 
battery and energy storage technology advancement?
Yes: 
No: (Skip To 12) 

If you answered Yes, please describe the goals for battery and energy 
storage technology advancement in the space below:  

11) Has your initiative created performance measures to track progress 
towards the battery and energy storage technology advancement goals?
Yes: 
No: 

If you answered Yes, please describe the performance measures in the 
space below:  

If you answered Yes, please describe the extent to which your 
initiative has met its goals during the period fiscal years 2009 
through 2012:  

12) Does your initiative have specific cost targets for the battery 
and energy storage technologies supported? 
Yes: 
No: 

If you answered Yes, please describe your initiative's cost targets in 
the space below: 

If you answered Yes, to what extent has your initiative met the cost 
targets since fiscal year 2009? Please explain in the space below: 

13) Does your initiative have specific technical performance targets 
for the battery and energy storage technologies supported? 
Yes: 
No: 

If you answered Yes, please describe your initiative's technical 
performance targets in the space below: 

If you answered Yes, to what extent has your initiative met the 
targets since fiscal year 2009? Please explain in the space below: 

Section IV: Funding For Initiative: 

We are interested in how much money goes toward the battery and energy 
storage technology-related activities that your initiative supports. 
We would like to be able to report obligations data across all federal 
battery and energy storage technology-related initiatives for fiscal 
years 2009 through 2012. If necessary, please consult with staff in 
your agency's budget office to answer these funding-related questions. 
Note: We may request copies of supporting documentation for the 
numbers you provide below. 

For questions in this section, please use the following definition:
An obligation is a definite commitment that creates a legal liability 
of the government for the payment of-goods and services ordered or 
received, or a legal duty on the part of the United States that could 
mature into a legal liability. Payment may be made immediately or in 
the future. An agency incurs an obligation, for example, when it 
places an order, signs a contract, awards a grant, purchases a 
service, or takes other actions that require the government to make 
payments to the public or from one government account to another. 

14) For fiscal years 2009 through 2012, please provide actual or 
estimated obligations data for your initiative's battery and energy 
storage technology activities only. 

a) Fiscal year 2009: 
Total obligations for initiative's battery and energy storage technology
activities: $
Check if the total is an estimate: 
Check if information is not available: 

b) Fiscal year 2010: 
Total obligations for initiative's battery and energy storage technology
activities: $
Check if the total is an estimate: 
Check if information is not available: 

c) Fiscal year 2011: 
Total obligations for initiative's battery and energy storage technology
activities: $
Check if the total is an estimate: 
Check if information is not available: 

d) Fiscal year 2012 (estimated): 
Total obligations for initiative's battery and energy storage technology
activities: $
Check if the total is an estimate: 
Check if information is not available: 

If the total is an estimate, please describe how the estimate was 
determined and describe any limitations associated with this estimate:
FY 2009:
FY 2010:
FY 2011:
FY 2012: 

e) If actual or estimated obligations are not available, please 
explain why in the space below. (If you did provide obligations data, 
please proceed to Q14.)
FY 2009:
FY 2010:
FY 2011:
FY 2012: 

Questions 15 through 16 ask about specific projects funded or 
supported by your initiative in fiscal years 2009 through 2012. 

15) How many total projects were active in this initiative in fiscal 
years 2009 through 2012? For the purposes of this questionnaire, we 
consider individual projects to exist as part of an overall 
initiative—-for example, specific grant awards, or agreements, in-
house research activities, or contracts that are supported by your 
initiative. We consider an initiative to be "active" if the initiative 
was planned or funded or implemented or authorized in the fiscal year 
described. 
FY 2009:
FY 2010:
FY 2011:
FY 2012: 

16) We understand that some initiatives may support projects that are 
not battery and energy storage technology-related. Were all projects 
listed in question 15 battery and energy storage-related?
Yes: 
No: 

If you answered No, how many of the total projects listed above were 
battery and energy storage technology-related and were active in this 
initiative in fiscal years 2009 through 2012?
FY 2009:
FY 2010:
FY 2011:
FY 2012:
 
Section V: Coordination:  

Congress and GAO are interested in understanding how agencies 
coordinate internally and with other federal agencies on battery and 
energy storage technology-related initiatives.  

17) Do you or staff from your initiative formally coordinate with 
other battery and energy storage technology-related initiatives within 
your agency or with other federal agencies? An example of formal 
coordination might be participation in a working group or having an 
interagency agreement.  
Yes: 
No: 

If you answered Yes, please provide up to five examples of how you 
coordinate either within your agency or with other agencies on your 
initiative. Please also provide electronic copies of relevant 
documents or provide link(s) to relevant website(s) in the space below. 

Name/title of coordination activities: 
Description of coordination activities: 
Does this coordination activity involve coordinating with other 
agencies? 
Yes: 
No: 

If you have additional information you would like to provide about 
your coordination activities, please describe in the space below:   

18) When reviewing applications for assistance, do you assess other 
sources of federal funding the potential recipient (i.e., applicant) 
has obtained for the same project?
Yes: 
No: 
Not Applicable: 

If you answered Yes, please describe what information you review and 
how you assess the information, in the space below. 

Section VI: Other Information: 

19) Are there any additional data, further sources of information, 
nuances, or comments not covered previously that would help us further 
understand and report on how this initiative is being implemented? If 
you do not have additional information to provide, it is appropriate 
to leave this question blank. If you do have additional information, 
please describe it in the space below and/or provide link(s) to the 
relevant website(s) in the space below or please provide electronic 
copies of the relevant documents (e.g., strategic planning documents, 
performance reports, requests for proposals, regulatory provisions, 
etc.) when returning this questionnaire. 

Alternatively, you can suggest that further discussion about this 
initiative be conducted through follow-up conversations with GAO. 

20) Please provide a point of contact in your initiative for any 
follow-up questions we may have about the responses to this 
questionnaire: 

Agency/Organization: 
Contact Name: 
Email: 
Phone: 

Please remember to attach any relevant supporting documentation when 
returning this questionnaire to Luskp@gao.gov. 

Thank you for your time! 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Frank Rusco (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Tim Minelli (Assistant 
Director), Hilary Benedict, Frederick K. Childers, Tanya Doriss, R. 
Scott Fletcher, Brian M. Friedman, Cindy Gilbert, Perry Lusk, Cynthia 
Norris, Jerome Sandau, Kathryn Smith, Maria Stattel, Barbara 
Timmerman, and Eugene Wisnoski made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] In this report, the term "electric vehicles," refers to different 
types of electrified vehicles including hybrid electric, plug-in 
hybrid electric, and all-electric vehicles. 

[2] These technologies are called "power sources" in DOD because some 
devices' main use is power generation. An example of such a use is a 
battery supplying power for a laptop computer. 

[3] Specifically, we reported that DOD invested about $138 million in 
science and technology efforts related to nonrechargeable (i.e., 
primary batteries) and about $122 million in efforts related to 
rechargeable (i.e., secondary batteries) during fiscal years 2006 
through 2010. See GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Opportunities Exist to 
Improve DOD's Oversight of Power Source Investments, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-113] (Washington D.C.: Dec. 30, 
2010). 

[4] GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government 
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 
2011). 

[5] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] and GAO, 
Employment For People With Disabilities: Little Is Known about the 
Effectiveness of Fragmented and Overlapping Programs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-677] (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 
2012). 

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

[7] Nonrechargeable batteries are discarded after their charge has 
been depleted. 

[8] For the purposes of this report, we defined active initiatives as 
those that were planned or funded or implemented or authorized in any 
of the fiscal years described. 

[9] For the purposes of this report, we defined individual projects as 
parts of an overall initiative--for example, specific grant awards, 
agreements, in-house research activities, or contracts supported by an 
initiative. 

[10] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-113] and GAO, 
Renewable Energy: Federal Agencies Implement Hundreds of Initiatives, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-260] (Washington, D.C.: 
Feb. 27, 2012). 

[11] See, for example, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Progress Report for Energy 
Storage R&D, DOE/EE-0675 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2012). 

[12] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005). 

[13] Energy density of a battery or other energy storage technology is 
the ratio of energy stored to the mass or volume of the device. For 
example, energy density of a battery affects the distance a vehicle 
can travel with a given size battery. Power density is the amount of 
energy in a given device's mass or volume that can be delivered in a 
given period of time. For example, power density of a battery affects 
how fast a vehicle can accelerate. 

[14] We developed definitions that could be applied broadly to make 
comparisons across agencies and that covered the full spectrum of 
advancement activities. Federal agencies use various definitions and 
categories for describing the stages of technology advancement. For 
example, NASA and DOE use technology readiness level (TRL) categories 
and definitions to measure and communicate technology readiness for 
first-of-a-kind technology applications. However, these agencies' TRL 
categories and definitions are not the same. In addition, the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) provides federal definitions for the 
terms basic research, applied research, and development in OMB 
Circular No. A-11, Section 84--Character Classification (Schedule C), 
but does not provide definitions for demonstrations and 
commercialization activities. During pretests of our questionnaire, 
agency officials were able to fit their initiatives' activities within 
our categories and based on our definitions, which validated our use 
of them. 

[15] For the purposes of this report, we defined an initiative as a 
group of agency activities serving a similar purpose or function, such 
as a program or mission area. Given this broad definition, we included 
initiatives that did not exclusively support battery and energy 
storage technology projects but did so as part of a broader effort 
that also supported other types of projects. 

[16] DOE's OVT also awarded $1.5 billion in funds made available under 
the Recovery Act to 20 projects to support the establishment of 
advanced battery manufacturing and recycling facilities in the United 
States. 

[17] Officials from DOE's LPO told us that one of the battery and 
energy storage projects with a loan guarantee commitment for a loan of 
$17 million withdrew from the program reducing the value of its loan 
to zero. As a result, the total amount in loans that DOE guaranteed 
for these technologies under the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program was 
reduced by $17 million and the total amount of the program's credit 
subsidy obligations were also reduced by over $830,000. 

[18] Credit subsidy costs exclude administrative costs and any 
incidental effects on governmental receipts or outlays. Present value 
is the worth of the future stream of returns or costs in terms of 
money paid immediately. In calculating present value, prevailing 
interest rates provide the basis for converting future amounts into 
their "money now" equivalents. 

[19] In addition, DOE's Batteries and Energy Storage Energy Innovation 
Hub reported not having battery and energy storage related goals. This 
initiative was established in fiscal year 2012. At the time of our 
review, DOE officials from the Office of Science's Office of Basic 
Energy Sciences (BES) reported that the applications and award process 
was not completed. The goals for the hub will be proposed through the 
applications, reviewed by peer review, and finalized in negotiations 
between DOE and the successful applicant. 

[20] A forward operating base is an airfield or ground base used as a 
staging area to support tactical operations without establishing full 
support facilities. 

[21] "Contract" means a mutually binding legal relationship obligating 
the seller to furnish the supplies or services (including 
construction) and the buyer to pay for them. It includes all types of 
commitments that obligate the government to an expenditure of 
appropriated funds and that, except as otherwise authorized, are in 
writing. In addition to bilateral instruments, contracts include (but 
are not limited to) awards and notices of awards; job orders or task 
letters issued under basic ordering agreements; letter contracts; 
orders, such as purchase orders, under which the contract becomes 
effective by written acceptance or performance; and bilateral contract 
modifications. Contracts do not include grants and cooperative 
agreements covered by 31 U.S.C. 6301, et seq. 

[22] Like grants, cooperative agreements involve the provision of 
financial or other support to accomplish a public purpose of support 
or stimulation authorized by federal statute. However, cooperative 
agreements differ from grants in terms of agency involvement, 
supervision, and intervention in the project. Whereas grants restrict 
government involvement to the minimum necessary to achieve program 
objectives, under cooperative agreements, the government and prime 
recipients share responsibility for the management, control, 
direction, and performance of projects. 

[23] In this context, the term "technologies" includes basic energy 
storage science. 

[24] Hotel power refers to power provided for all loads on a naval 
ship other than that to propel the ship through the water 
(propulsion). Examples of hotel loads are weapon systems, radar 
systems, and loads needed for the sustainment and comfort of the 
people on board. 

[25] Distributed energy generation refers to a variety of small, 
modular power-generating technologies such as wind turbines and solar 
panels that can be combined with energy storage technologies to 
improve the quality and/or reliability of the electricity supply. They 
are "distributed" because they are placed at or near the point of 
energy consumption, unlike traditional "centralized" systems, where 
electricity is generated at a remotely located, large-scale power 
plant and then transmitted down power lines to the consumer. 

[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[27] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] and 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-677]. 

[28] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[29] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-113]. 

[30] Department of Energy, Report on the First Quadrennial Technology 
Review (Washington, D.C.: September 2011). 

[31] Other components of electric vehicle systems include, for 
example, electric power train and power electronics. 

[32] Sarah Lichtner, Ross Brindle, and Lindsay Pack, Electric Power 
Industry Needs for Grid-Scale Storage Applications, special report 
prepared at the request of the Department of Energy, December 2010. 

[33] GAO, Department of Energy: Advanced Research Projects Agency- 
Energy Could Benefit from Information on Applicants' Prior Funding, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-112] (Washington, D.C.: 
Jan. 13, 2012). 

[34] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-113]. 

[35] Operational energy is defined as the energy required for 
training, moving, and sustaining military forces and weapons platforms 
for military operations. The term includes energy used by tactical 
power systems and generators and weapons platforms. 

[36] Department of Defense, Energy for the Warfighter: Operational 
Energy Strategy, (Washington, D.C.: May 2011) and Operational Energy 
Strategy: Implementation Plan (Washington, D.C.: March 2012). 

[37] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-113]. 

[38] For the purposes of this report, we defined active initiatives as 
those that were planned or funded or implemented or authorized in any 
of the fiscal years described. 

[39] We developed definitions that could be applied broadly to make 
comparisons across agencies and that covered the full spectrum of 
advancement activities. Federal agencies use various definitions and 
categories for describing the stages of technology advancement. For 
example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and 
DOE use technology readiness level (TRL) categories and definitions to 
measure and communicate technology readiness for first-of-a-kind 
technology applications. However, these agencies' TRL categories and 
definitions are not the same. In addition, the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) provides federal definitions for the terms basic 
research, applied research, and development in OMB Circular No. A-11, 
Section 84-
-Character Classification (Schedule C) but does not provide 
definitions for demonstrations and commercialization activities. 
During pretests of our questionnaire, agency officials were able to 
fit their initiatives' activities within our categories and based on 
our definitions, which validated our use of them. 

[40] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-113] and 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-260]. 

[41] For example, to help agency officials precisely understand our 
technology scope, we explained in the introduction to our 
questionnaire that our definition of batteries and other energy 
storage technologies encompassed full systems, as well as subsystems, 
components, and power management approaches for these technologies--
for example, battery components, battery cells and packs, and battery 
power management systems. 

[42] See, for example, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Progress Report for Energy 
Storage R&D, DOE/EE-0675 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2012). 

[43] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

[End of document] 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.