National Academies Interim Report Released: Overcoming Barriers to Electric-Vehicle Deployment

Recently, the National Academies Press (NAP) released a pre-publication interim report produced by the Committee on Overcoming Barriers to Electric-Vehicle Deployment; Board on Energy and Environmental Systems; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; Transportation Research Board; and the National Research Council titled, Overcoming Barriers to Electric-Vehicle Deployment (2013). The 82-page report (available free with a one-time registration) discusses how,

[t]he electric vehicle offers many promises—increasing U.S. energy security by reducing petroleum dependence, contributing to climate-change initiatives by decreasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, stimulating long-term economic growth through the development of new technologies and industries, and improving public health by improving local air quality. There are, however, substantial technical, social, and economic barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles, including vehicle cost, small driving range, long charging times, and the need for a charging infrastructure. In addition, people are unfamiliar with electric vehicles, are uncertain about their costs and benefits, and have diverse needs that current electric vehicles might not meet. Although a person might derive some personal benefits from ownership, the costs of achieving the social benefits, such as reduced GHG emissions, are borne largely by the people who purchase the vehicles. Given the recognized barriers to electric-vehicle adoption, Congress asked the Department of Energy (DOE) to commission a study by the National Academies to address market barriers that are slowing the purchase of electric vehicles and hindering the deployment of supporting infrastructure. As a result of the request, the National Research Council (NRC)—a part of the National Academies—appointed the Committee on Overcoming Barriers to Electric-Vehicle Deployment.

This committee documented their findings in two reports—a short interim report focused on near-term options, and a final comprehensive report. Overcoming Barriers to Electric-Vehicle Deployment fulfills the request for the short interim report that addresses specifically the following issues: infrastructure needs for electric vehicles, barriers to deploying the infrastructure, and possible roles of the federal government in overcoming the barriers. This report also includes an initial discussion of the pros and cons of the possible roles. This interim report does not address the committee's full statement of task and does not offer any recommendations because the committee is still in its early stages of data-gathering. The committee will continue to gather and review information and conduct analyses through late spring 2014 and will issue its final report in late summer 2014.

Overcoming Barriers to Electric-Vehicle Deployment focuses on the light-duty vehicle sector in the United States and restricts its discussion of electric vehicles to plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), which include battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). The common feature of these vehicles is that their batteries are charged by being plugged into the electric grid. BEVs differ from PHEVs because they operate solely on electricity stored in a battery (that is, there is no other power source); PHEVs have internal combustion engines that can supplement the electric power train. Although this report considers PEVs generally, the committee recognizes that there are fundamental differences between PHEVs and BEVs.

GAO Report Released: Department of Energy: Observations on Project and Program Cost Estimating in NNSA and the Office of Environmental Management

Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Department of Energy: Observations on Project and Program Cost Estimating in NNSA and the Office of Environmental Management GAO-13-5140T (May 8, 2013). The details of the 24-page report, available here, are discussed below:

Why GAO Did This Study

DOE's [National Nuclear Security Administration] NNSA and [Office of Environmental Management] EM ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and address environmental cleanup of Cold War sites. Together, NNSA and EM have outlined plans that could commit American taxpayers to $450 billion in programs and projects over decades to address their missions. NNSA and EM oversee contracts for the execution of both projects, including capital asset acquisitions, and programs central to the achievement of their missions. GAO has reported on the status of DOE's projects and programs and has repeatedly identified cost overruns as compared with cost estimates. A realistic cost estimate provides a basis for both an accurate budget and effective resource allocation. In a time of fiscal constraint, Congress needs high-quality cost information upon which to make decisions about NNSA's and EM's projects and programs.

This testimony focuses on GAO's (1) prior findings and preliminary observations from ongoing work on cost-estimating practices for NNSA's and EM's capital asset projects, and (2) prior findings and preliminary observations from ongoing work on cost-estimating practices for NNSA's operating programs. It is largely based on prior GAO reports issued from January 2010 to February 2013. For its ongoing work, GAO reviewed DOE policies, orders, and guidance and interviewed DOE, NNSA, and contractor officials.

GAO is making no new recommendations. DOE continues to act on the recommendations GAO has made to improve cost estimating. GAO will continue to monitor implementation of these recommendations.

National Academies Report Released: An Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy's Marine and Hydrokinetic Resource Assessments

Recently, the National Academies Press (NAP) released a report produced by the Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology Assessment Committee; Board on Energy and Environmental Systems; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; Ocean Studies Board; Division on Earth and Life Sciences; and the National Research Council titled, An Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy's Marine and Hydrokinetic Resource Assessments (2013).  The 154-page report (available free with a one-time registration) discusses how,

[i]ncreasing renewable energy development, both within the United States and abroad, has rekindled interest in the potential for marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) resources to contribute to electricity generation. These resources derive from ocean tides, waves, and currents; temperature gradients in the ocean; and free-flowing rivers and streams. One measure of the interest in the possible use of these resources for electricity generation is the increasing number of permits that have been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). As of December 2012, FERC had issued 4 licenses and 84 preliminary permits, up from virtually zero a decade ago. However, most of these permits are for developments along the Mississippi River, and the actual benefit realized from all MHK resources is extremely small. The first U.S. commercial gridconnected project, a tidal project in Maine with a capacity of less than 1 megawatt (MW), is currently delivering a fraction of that power to the grid and is due to be fully installed in 2013.

As part of its assessment of MHK resources, DOE asked the National Research Council (NRC) to provide detailed evaluations. In response, the NRC formed the Committee on Marine Hydrokinetic Energy Technology Assessment. As directed in its statement of task (SOT), the committee first developed an interim report, released in June 2011, which focused on the wave and tidal resource assessments (Appendix B). The current report contains the committee's evaluation of all five of the DOE resource categories as well as the committee's comments on the overall MHK resource assessment process. This summary focuses on the committee's overarching findings and conclusions regarding a conceptual framework for developing the resource assessments, the aggregation of results into a single number, and the consistency across and coordination between the individual resource assessments. Critiques of the individual resource assessment, further discussion of the practical MHK resource base, and overarching conclusions and recommendations are explained in An Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy's Marine and Hydrokinetic Resource Assessment.

DOE Audit Report Released: The Department of Energy's Use of the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility at the Oak Ridge Reservation

Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General released an audit report titled, The Department of Energy's Use of the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility at the Oak Ridge Reservation (2013) (IG-0883). The 14-page report available here, discusses the following:

[t]he Environmental Management Waste Management Facility (EMWMF) is an above-ground waste disposal facility designed to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management (OREM) manages the Department of Energy's (Department) contract with URS | CH2M Oak Ridge, LLC (UCOR), which has operated EMWMF since August 2011. We found that OREM had not maximized its use of available capacity at EMWMF, and as a consequence, may incur more than $14 million in unnecessary disposal costs. Specifically, OREM permitted its contractors to send minimally contaminated waste to EMWMF that may have otherwise been acceptable for disposal in the sanitary landfill at a much lower cost per unit. For example, contractor officials told us that from fiscal years 2002 through 2011, they had disposed of 140,000 cubic yards of material (minimally contaminated waste plus required fill) at EMWMF that likely could have been disposed of in the sanitary landfill at a much lower cost per unit. The Department of Energy (Department) had not established site-specific surface authorized limits for determining when certain types of minimally contaminated waste could be disposed of in sanitary landfills rather than in EMWMF. In the absence of such site-specific authorized limits, certain surface­contaminated wastes have been disposed of at EMWMF that potentially could have been safely disposed at sanitary landfills. Maintaining this approach could ultimately and unnecessarily utilize 11 percent of EMWMF's waste disposal capacity. During the course of our audit, UCOR recognized the issues we discovered and implemented procedures compliant with Department and landfill permit requirements to allow more waste to be disposed in the sanitary landfill; however, we believe that additional action is necessary to improve efficiency of waste disposal operations and conserve EMWMF capacity. Environmental Management generally concurred with the report and its comments were responsive to our recommendations.

GAO Report Released: Energy Efficiency: Better Coordination among Federal Programs Needed to Allocate Testing Resources

Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Energy Efficiency: Better Coordination among Federal Programs Needed to Allocate Testing Resources GAO-13-125 (Mar. 28, 2013). The details of the 26-page report, available here, are discussed below:

Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government has established three key programs to encourage energy efficiency in household appliances and consumer electronics sold in the United States: (1) federal minimum efficiency standards, led by DOE; (2) EnergyGuide, which requires product labeling and is led by the FTC; and (3) Energy Star, a voluntary labeling program led by EPA.

Pub. L. No. 111-139 requires GAO to annually identify programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals and activities. In response to this mandate, the objectives for this report are to: (1) examine these three programs' approaches to improving the energy efficiency of household appliances and consumer electronics and the scope of products they cover, and (2) determine to what extent, if any, federal programs to foster energy efficiency for these products are fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative. GAO reviewed relevant legislation and program documents and spoke with staff at the agencies about each of the programs, and to stakeholders, including manufacturers.

What GAO Recommends

To limit the potential for duplication in the current Energy Star verification testing activities, GAO recommends that EPA take steps to better communicate to DOE the models selected for testing so DOE can avoid testing the same ones. DOE and EPA acknowledged the importance of coordination, but EPA disagreed with the draft recommendation, citing concerns it could be labor intensive to implement. GAO revised the recommendation to clarify EPA’s flexibility in implementing it.

DOE Audit Report Released: The Department of Energy's Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage Program Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General released an audit report titled, The Department of Energy's Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage Program Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2013) (OAS-RA-13-15).  The 33-page report available here, discusses the following:

[t]he Department of Energy (Department) received nearly $1.5 billion through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) to invest in clean industrial technologies and sequestration projects through the Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage Program (Carbon Program). The National Energy Technology Laboratory awarded 46 cooperative agreements to a variety of demonstration and research and development projects. The agreements required substantial involvement by Federal project managers and relied on recipients to share in the investments needed to complete the projects. The audit found that the Department had not always effectively managed the Carbon Program and the use of Recovery Act funds. In particular, our review of the Carbon Program, including 15 recipients awarded a total of approximately $1.1 billion, revealed that the Department had not adequately documented the approval and rationale to use $575 million of the $1.1 billion reviewed to accelerate existing projects rather than proceeding with new awards as required by Federal and Department policies. In addition, the Department reimbursed recipients approximately $16.8 million without obtaining or reviewing adequate supporting documentation, and awarded three recipients over $90 million in Recovery Act funding even though the merit review process identified significant financial and/or technical issues. Further, the Department had not ensured that recipient subcontractor or vendor selections for goods and services represented the best value to the Government. Therefore, we identified up to $18.3 million in questionable reimbursement claims that were approved by the Department for just the sample of awards reviewed. The issues identified occurred, in part, because program officials had not always provided effective monitoring and oversight of recipient activities. In response to our finding, management concurred with most of the recommendations and indicated that it had initiated and/or taken corrective actions to improve the Department’s implementation of the Carbon Program.

GAO Report Released: Department of Energy: Concerns with Major Construction Projects at the Office of Environmental Management and NNSA

Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Department of Energy: Concerns with Major Construction Projects at the Office of Environmental Management and NNSA GAO-13-484T (Mar. 20, 2013). The details of the 13-page report, available here, are discussed below:

Why GAO Did This Study

DOE relies primarily on contractors to carry out its diverse missions and operate its laboratories and other facilities, with about 90 percent of its annual budget spent on contracts and capital asset projects. Since 1990, GAO has reported that DOE has suffered from substantial and continual weaknesses in effectively overseeing contractors and managing large, expensive, and technically complex projects. As of February 2013, EM and NNSA remained on GAO's list of areas at high risk of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement for major contract and project management.

This testimony, which is primarily based on GAO reports issued from March 2009 to December 2012, focuses on (1) prior GAO findings on DOE major projects and the impact of recent DOE steps to address project management weaknesses and (2) preliminary observations from GAO's ongoing work on the reasons behind the planned increase in the performance baseline--a project's cost, schedule, and scope--for two projects being constructed as part of NNSA's Plutonium Disposition Program--the MOX facility and the Waste Solidification Building.

GAO is making no new recommendations. DOE and NNSA continue to act on the numerous recommendations GAO has made to improve management of the nuclear security enterprise. GAO will continue to monitor DOE's and NNSA's implementation of these recommendations.

CRS Report Released: Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Technology Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, recently issued the report Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Technology Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs (Jan. 10, 2013). The 42-page report authored by Lynn J. Cunningham, Beth A. Roberts, Bill Canis, and Brent D. Yacobucci discusses the following:

Summary

A wide array of federal incentives supports the development and deployment of alternatives to conventional fuels and engines in transportation. These incentives include tax deductions and credits for vehicle purchases and the installation of refueling systems, federal grants for conversion of older vehicles to newer technologies, mandates for the use of biofuels, and incentives for manufacturers to produce alternative fuel vehicles. The current array of incentives for alternative fuels and related technologies does not reflect a single, comprehensive strategy, but rather an aggregative approach to a range of discreet public policy issues, including goals of reducing petroleum consumption and import dependence, improving environmental quality, expanding domestic manufacturing, and promoting agriculture and rural development.

Current federal programs are administered by five key agencies: Department of the Treasury, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The incentives and programs described in this report are organized by the responsible agency.

• Treasury (through the Internal Revenue Service, IRS) administers tax credits and deductions for alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicle purchases, expansion of alternative fuel refueling infrastructure, and incentives for the production and/or distribution of alternative fuels. Many of these incentives have expired in recent years although some were extended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240).
• DOE (mainly through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EERE) administers research and development (R&D) programs for advanced fuels and transportation technology, grant programs to deploy alternative fuels and vehicles, and a loan program to promote domestic manufacturing of high efficiency vehicles.
• DOT (mainly through the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, and Federal Transit Administration, FTA) administers grant programs to deploy “clean fuel” buses and other alternative fuel vehicles. DOT (through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA) also administers federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which include incentives for production of alternative fuel vehicles.
• EPA (mainly through the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, OTAQ) administers the Renewable Fuel Standard, which mandates the use of biofuels in transportation. EPA also administers grant programs to replace older diesel engines with newer technology.
• USDA (mainly through the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, RBS) administers grant, loan, and loan guarantee programs to expand agricultural production of biofuel feedstocks, conduct R&D on biofuels and bioenergy, and establish and expand facilities to produce biofuels, bioenergy, and bioproducts.