Document Number 1 DOEICF-OQBT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STRATEGI MAY 2011 US. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY STRATEGIC PLAN MAY 2011 U.S. Department of Energy STRATEGIC PLAN The mission ofthe Department oi-Jjnergy is to ensure America?s security and prosperityr by addressing its energy. environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and tech nology solutions. Goal 1: Catalyse the timely, material, and efficient transformation oFthe nation?s energy system and secure leadership in clean energy technologies. Goal 2: Maintain a Vibrant US. effort in science and engineering as a cornerstone oFour economic with clear leadership in strategic areas. Goal 3: Enhance nuclear security through defense, nonproliferation, and emrironmental eiiForts. Goal 4: Establish an operational and adaptable Framework that combines the best wisdom of all Department Stakeholders to maximize mission success. I. IHut mission is vital and urgent. 2. Science and technology lie at the heart of our mission. 3. we will treat our people as our greatest asset. 4. we will pursue our mission in a manner that is safe, secure, legally and ethically sound. and ?scally responsible. 5. W?e will manage rislt in ful?lling our mission. 6. we will apply 1validated standards and rigorous peer review. 7. we will succeed only through teamwork and continuous improvement. U.S. Department of Energy vi STRATEGIC PLAN Mission and Department ofEnergy Management Message from the Secretary ofEnergy 1 Science and Technology for Economic 2 Our Energy and Environmental 2 Getting From ?Where ?We Fire to W?here Winn to Be 4 Who We 6 User Facilities .. (i The Broader Scienti?c Community .. 7 A Partner with the Private 7? The Experts in Defense and Civilian Nuclear?lechnologies 8 Transform 0111- Energy Deploy the Technologies We Have12 Drive Energy Ef?ciency to Reduce Demand 12 Demonstrate and Deploy Clean Energy Technologies 13 Moderniae the Electric Grid i4 Enable Prudent Development of 'Our Natural 1'3 Discover the New Solutions we Need 1'3 Accelerate Energy innovation Through T?recompetirive Research and 16 Facilitate Technology Transfer to industry .. 1? Establish Technology Test Beds and Demonstrations .. 18 Leverage Partnerships to Expand Our 19 Lead the National Conversation on 20 Provide Sound information on Energy Systems and Their Evolution 20 vii U.S. Department of Energy Promote Energy Literacy .. 21 Make the Federal Government a Leader in Sustainability .. 21 The Science and Engineering Enterprise Extend Our Knowledge ofthe Natural W?orld 23 Deliver New Technologies to Advance Our Mission 26 Lead Computational Sciences and Highrl?eriorniance 28 Sustain a \World?Ieading Technical 28 Secure Our Support the US. Nuclear Stockpile and Future Military 31 Maintain a Safe, Secure, and Effective US. Nuclear 3] Strengthen the Science, Technology, and Engineering 32 Recapitalize the Nuclear Infrastructure and Deterrent Capability .. 33 Dismantle Excess Nuclear \Veapons to Meet National Objectives .. 33 Reduce Global Nuclear Dangers .. 33 Enhance Nonproliferation Efforts and the Security oil-Nuclear 33 Support the President?s Arms Control and Nonproliferation 3?i Apply Our Capabilities for Other Critical National Security 34 Strategic Partnerships to Address Broad National Security 35 Analysis of Foreign Nuclear chapons Programs and Novel 35 Counter the Threat of" Nuclear Terrorism 35 Design and Develop integrated Navy Nuclear Propulsion 35 Support Responsible Civilian Nuclear Power Development and Fuel Cycle Management 36 Support the Development oFa New international Framework For Nuclear Cooperation 3G Strengthen International Safeguards and Export lControls to Support Safe and Secure Deployment oFNuclear Power 36 STRATEGIC PLAN Complete Environmental Remediation oFOur Legacy and Active Protect Human Health and the . Maximize Success oFCIonstruction and I:?Jpcrarions Outcomes A Technical Roadmap to Address Radioactive Liquid Tank Wilsre Ensure a Long?Term Solution to the Cold W?aris Environmental Legacy .. i Management and Operational Achieve Operational and Technical Excellence .. Align Roles and Responsibilities Across the Complex Develop the Most Highly Quali?ed, Capable, and Flexible Federal Assure Excellence in READ Management .. Improve Contract and Project Leverage Inhasrructure to Support the Mission . Create 3 Regulatory Process That is Strategic and Ef?cient Implement a Performance?Based ICulture . Cultivate a Performance?Based Improve Transform Our Approach to Safety and Security .. Enahle Missions Through Responsive IT and Cyher Security .. Refresh Our Strategy Regularly .. 3U.S.. Department of Energy Legend I Operations Of?ces I. Productionr?Cleanuo Laboratories I Field Of?ces I Site or Project Of?ces Special Purpose Sites or Of?ces 0 Power Administrations I Service Business Center Alaska 0 Arctic Energy Of?ce California 0 Berkeley Site Of?ce 3 EnergyTechnology Engineering Center Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 0 Livermore Site Of?ce Sandia National Laboratories SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 0 SLAC Site Of?ce Colorado lGolden Field Of?ce a} Grand Junction Of?ce National Renewable Energy Laboratory t3 Rocky Flats Closure Project Western Area Power Administration Connecticut is 16 Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserves District ofCqumbia 0 Washington DC. Headquarters Georgia Southeastern Power Administration Idaho EB Idaho National Laboratory El Idaho Operations Of?ce Radiological Environmental Sciences Laboratory Illinois Argonne National Laboratory 9 Chicago Of?ce Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Fermi Site Of?ce New Brunswick Laboratory Iowa Ames Laboratory Kentucky f3 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant a} PortsmouthtPaducah Project Of?ce Louisiana 31 Strategic Petroleum Reserve Missouri ?5 Kansas City Plant Kansas City Site Of?ce Nevada at Nevada Site Of?ce 35 Nevada National Security Site 35 Yucca Mountain 9 Of?ce of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management New Jersey 35 Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory El Princeton Site Of?ce New Mexico or Carlsbad Field Of?ce Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute Los Alamos National Laboratory (It Los Alamos Site Of?ce 45 NationalTraining Center EB NN SA Service Center Sandia National Laboratories :5 Sandia Site Of?ce 49 Waste Isolation Pilot Plant New Yo rk Brookhaven National Laboratory 6) Brookhaven Site Of?ce Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Schenectady Naval Reactors Of?ce ED West Valley Demonstration Project ?9 Columbus Environmental Management Project '53 EM Consolidated Business Center Miamisburg Closure Project E3 Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Oklahoma 6 Southwestern Power Administration Oregon Bonneville Power Administration National EnergyTechnology Laboratory Albany Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory 64 National EnergyTechnology Laboratory Pittsburgh El Naval Reactors Laboratory Field Of?ce Rhode Island Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve i ME vt NII a .va 15-1?65 ~15: RI CT 35 51 ?r~n South Carolina at Savannah River National Laboratory Savannah River Operations Of?ce Savannah River Site Of?ce Tennessee ED EastTennessee Technology Park Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge Site Of?ce 73 Of?ce of Scienti?c and Technical Information ED Plant a ?r??12 Site Of?ce Texas E) Pantex Plant and Site Of?ce National Energy Technology Lab Sugar Land Virginia Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Tho mas Jefferson Site Of?ce Washington 53 Hanford Paci?c Northwest National Laboratory {3 Paci?c Northwest Site Of?Ce a Richland Operations Of?ce 9 Of?ce of River Protection West Virginia National Energy Technology Laboratory Morgantown Wyoming ?5 Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 3 Casper STRATEGIC PLAN All Americans seek a better quality oi-life, prosperity, and strengthened national security. ?lso deep in ottr national DNA is the desire to provide our children and grandchildren with greater opportunities than we received From our parents. in today?s rapidly changing world, none of?our aspirations can be taken For granted. The Department of Energy has the ability and obligation to play an increasingly central role in realizing these aspirations. The Department of Energy plays an important and unique role in the US. science and technology community. The Department?s missions and programs are designed to bring the best scienti?c minds and capabilities to bear on important probletns. it is an integrator, bringing together diverse scientists and engineers From national laboratories, academia, and the private sector in multidisciplinary teams, striving to ?nd solutions to the most complex and pressing challenges. This Strategic Plan lays our the Department?s leadership role in transforming the energy economy through investments in research, development of new technologies, and deployment of- innovative approaches. There is great urgency in the Department?s work today. An increasingly complex, global environment has brought into sharp focus the relationships between energy security, climate change, and, national security objectives?all against a backdrop oFconcerns about US. economic competitiveness. The Departments engine of innovation must now be directed at that nexus, accelerating progress toward solutions with renewed purpose and vigor. In addition to advancing science and technology relevant to energy, the environment, and security, the Department oi-iinergy is the government?s largest ?nancial supporter of the physical sciences, managing world~elass basic research programs and. supporting unique user Facilities in a variety of disciplines. These activities underpin the mission areas through the discoveries they produce, the people they attract and train, and the instruments and methods they develop. This Strategic Plan is designed to take best advantage or? the capabilities oFthe Department to drive soltitions across energy, environmental, climate, and security challenges. it draws upon the Department?s ability to talse a systems view of large, complex problems; build multidisciplinary teams; and drive science and engineering innovation. Success in this strategy will catalyze the transformation of the nation?s energy system, build a sustainable and competitive clean energy economy, increase nuclear security worldwide, and maintain US. global leadership in science and engineering. These goals are important iirst steps toward the Departments vision of a prosperous, sustainable, secure future for generations to come. U.S. Department of Energy innovation will drive our economic prosperity in an increasingly competitive world. Although the United States still leads the world in computers, communications, io ec ino aeros ace, ant ot ier tec me int ustriesthese areas. The competition is closing in rapidly the United States has become a net importer ofhigh technology products, and our leadership in future technology revolutions is not guaranteed. it is imperative that we reverse the loss manti?icniring jobs, particularly in high technology manuFacturing, and maintain a wide set of opportunities for our citizens by rebuilding manufacturing capabilities. A cornerstone of technology leadership and its accompanying jobs is a vibrant science and technology enterprise. Although the United States still has the worlst greatest research institutions?in no small part dtte to the Department?s efforts?this leadership is at risk. Vii/re must remain Focused on effectively nurturing our research enterprise. in addition to this core activity. the Department needs to cultivate the entire technology innovation chain, Front enabling discoveries to research, development, demonstration, and deployment While our most bene?cial role is the support of the earlier stages of this chain. there are several stages in which the best innovative ?seedlings? can wither anti die before the private sector embraces a new tecl?tnology. This is especially true in certain energy sectors that currently do not have a strong innovation culture or where markets have not yet adjusted to changing conditions. To ensure our nation?s future prosperity, the Department must identify and nurture promising tecltnologies, even though some may [alter [or a variety of reasons unrelated to technical capability. in later stages Ufil'll'lUVEltiOl'l, we must leverage our resources with those of the private sector to move promising technologies from the laboratory to the marketplace. There is compelling evidence that carbon?dioxide emissions from human activities are adversely affecting the climate. Any path close to ?business as usual? will imperil Future generations with dangerous and unacceptable economic, social, and environmental risks. The conventional use of fossil fuels is a major source of these emissions. In particular. our excessive dependence on oil is taking us down an increasingly costly, insecure, anti environmentally dangerous path. As part of prudent risk management, our responsibility to Future generations is to eliminate most oF our carbon emissions and transition to a sustainable energy home. I'm ancient Native .r?nnerican saying reminds us of this duty: ?Treat the earth well. it was not given to you by your parents, but is loaned to you by your children." STRATEGIC PLAN Together with a sustainable environ mental legacy, we want to bequeath to the next generation the likelihood oi?i?uture prosperity. While it has been said ?It is dif?cult to make predictions. especially the future,)1 strategic plans are best made with a Focus on likely outcomes. Developed and developing countries in Europe and Asia are positioning themselves for a future oihigher oil prices and constrained carbon emissions. Most notably. China is aggressively developing clean energy technologies, promoting energy eFi-icienc}: and diversifying its energy supplies. American leadership in the clean energy revolution is essential to ?tture economic competitiveness. Regrettably, the United States has lost its lead in many oFthe energy technologies that we developed. Electricity transmission and distribution systems were pioneered by Thomas Edison, George W?estinghouse, and Nikola iiesla, but today Europeans are the leading manufacturers. China, also seeking to compete in this market, hopes to export expertise gained From installing the worlds highest voltage alternating current and direct current lines. r'imerica built the first nuclear reaCtor as part oFthe Manhattan Projecr in the 19405, but the major commercial suppliers today are headquartered in France, Japan, Russia, arid Korea. China ltas broken ground on more than 20 new nuclear reactors (approximately half of all Gen Iii+ reactors under construction} and will construct two nuclear reactor foundries. Similar reports of lost advantages apply to photovoltaics, advanced wind turbines, and i?llCl?CF?CiCt?tt automobiles. W?ith the right government policies and eFFeetive RDDEYD programs, the United States can lead the clean energy revolution. The transition to a secure, low?carbon energy Future requires nothing less than a new industrial revolution. Economics and climate science demand a rapid transition, yet transformations of energy systems have historically taken decades. \We must act aggressively ?with the ?erce urgency of now? and greatly reduce the time from invention to deployment with signi?cant market penetration. To guarantee U.S. leadership in the transition to a sustainable energy Future, we need to increasineg engage in all stages oiienergy innovation to optimally harvest the scientific, technological, and economic bounty for our future generations. For example, by exploiting unique Department capabilities in instrumentation and numerical simulation, we can reduce time?consuming and costly development steps as a technology moves from the laboratory to pilot? to ?tll~scale demonstration. The Department and its predecessor organizations were founded upon scienti?c research in accelerator and nuclear physics that began with E. 0. Lawrence in the 19305. Subsequently, that expertise played a critical role in our national deiense during \World War ii and the Cold \iv'ar. \While the threat ofa nuclear Armageddon among superpowers diminished as the Cold W?ar ended and the Soviet Union I. I i?l'he Ammo! Energy Outlook 2031? projects the average real price oflight crude oil will rise from a barrel in 2919 to nearly $125 a barrel l[real 2009B in 2935. 2U1 l. U.S. Energy information Administration. Available. at: M'i? liguidtitelscim. The Full Armani Energy Undone report is available at U.S. Department of Energy disintegrated, the threat anuclear proliferation and terrorism is growing. The Department has a central role in minimizing these dangers. We must minimize the risk of'pt'olitet'ation and detect and counter proliferation tltreats if and when they occur. As the number of nuclear weapons in our own stockpile shrinks, it is our task to improve their sttrety and maintain their reliability without nuclear testing. Our aging nuclear security infrastructure will he modernized to support the stockpile and perform other vital nuclear security work, including nonproliferation, counterterrorism, etnergency management, and naval nuclear propulsion. Our nuclear responsibilities also include the development oFsaFe storage and ?nal disposition of used nuclear litel, as well as the cleanup oi?our lCold \Xr?ar legacy. The Department supports the Presidenth call to work with other nations to build ?a new framework for civil nuclear cooperatitz-nH so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks onroliFeration. There is a huge potential to engage the expertise ofU.S. industry, our national laboratories, and universities in the challenges ot?bctter using the energy or nuclear Fuel; enhancing proliferation resistance; and reducing the volume, the toxicity, and the liletime ofwaste streams. The Department is a vast organization whose significant resources musr be coordinated to meet the challenges outlined in this Strategic Plan. in that spirit, we have worked hard to overcome barriers that degrade ottr performance?by launching efforts to cut across stove?piped programs; encouraging people to think beyond the mandate oF their own organizations to embrace the whole enterprise; challenging them to reform established habits and procedures; and reassuring them that prudent risk?taking will be rewarded, even when our efforts fall short of our hopes. In recent years, the Department has made good progress in these areas, but there remains opportunities for further improvement. To accelerate and improve the execution of Department missions, we must ?rst identify where we are and where we want to be. A number ofopportunities have been identi?ed to improve our organization and management, including the Following areas: Increased transparency across the DOE enterprise. Technical assessment and peer review. Project and contract management. h-"lore aggressive recruitment of topaqualiry program managers with extensive subject matter expertise. STRATEGIC PLAN IContinued integration of safety and security as an integral part oFline management responsibilities. Independent oversight provides a means to verify whether line management is ful?lling their responsibilities. Improved mechanisms to solicit and incorporate the expertise ol?management and scientists in our national laboratories. As part of this reform agenda. we need to establish feedback mechanisms that will identi?ed problems are addressed and solved in a timely manner. The development ofa strategic plan is one mechanism to encourage different stakeholders to look across scienti?c disciplines and organizational structures. However. a strategic plan does not guarantee consultation or collaboration. Similarly, plans developed by upper management without the participation and enthusiastic endorsement of our career program officers and national laboratory leaders and scientists will not All stakeholders have to be convinced that the investment of time to learn what others are doing within the organization is worth the effort. The most successful organizations have developed a culture in which people are willing to move out of their comfort zones, see value in being challenged b? others, and are able to share authority. in formulating our Strategic Plan, 1 have asked the Department the following questions: - Is our current portfolio ofinvestments consistent with our overarching goals? - How can we better tap the best technical and managerial expertise throughout the Department. national laboratories. and research universities to identify and constantly renew the most promising opportunities in our investment strategies? \What can we do to increase the nimbleness ofour programs without sacri?cing institutional stability? \What enduring mechanisms can we establish that will break down barriers to maximize the transfer ofinformation and integration of programs across the Department? Perhaps the most important part of the development ofa strategic plan is the creation ofa framework for future planning. in formulating a strategic plan, we need to guard against premature down?selection of specific paths or the creation ofa narrow list ofpriorities that do not allow or encourage bottom up ?skunkrworks? developments. On the other hand, we need to seek and consistently pursue bold strategies that will help ensure U5. prosperity and security. ?iogether, we can meet our responsibility to the generations to come. W?i/ Secretary Steven Char U.S.. Department of Energy The Department?s workforce is our greatest asset. The core is the more than 15,000 Federal employees at headquarters and across the country. Our highly quali?ed personnel dedicate their expertise ranging From engineering to accounting, public policy to climate science, and physics to law?to the urgent missions oFthe Department with a lierce sense of deep devotion to public service. Our stalii's skill in project and contract management delivers the Department?s mission while remaining dedicated to the taxpayer through sound guidance and effective supervision. \We are also committed to expanding the diversity ofour employees and contractors, recognizing that the vibrancy or" the Departments culture depends on the varied backgrounds oF its personnel. The Department can succeed in addressing the greatest challenges oF our times because of the quality and dedication ofour employees. The Department is committed to enhancing its employees wellbeing as they serve the nation. National laboratories are signature assets ol'the Department. As Federally Funded Research and Des-'elopment Centers,1 laboratories provide unique technical capabilities to the government that cannot be met as effectively by existing in?house or contractor resources. This status can give the laboratories greater Flexibility than most government organizations in operations, and in attracting and retaining a diverse and highly skilled technical workforce across a wide range of disciplines. The national laboratories are the Departments strong long=term partners, supporting the diverse research and development needs ottr missions demand. Multiprogram laboratories pursue a full spectrum of capabilities, from discovery and mission?driven research through technology development. Thus, these laboratories are nimble and adaptable in the Face of changing national problems and priorities. This rich, intellectual environment promotes excellence by enabling a healthy competition of ideas. The contractors who operate these laboratories are evaluated on how well the laboratories as institutions?serve the long-term mission needs of the Department. The and unique character of national laboratories and our supporting sites have also made them assets for other government agencies. National laboratories malte crucial contributions to the U.S. intelligence community and the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. These missions contribute directly to saving human lives and protecting national security in real time. The Department has a core competency in the design, development. construction. and operation of unique user facilities that bene?t the entire LLS. ?The National Energy'lechnology laboratory, a federal laboratory, is the sole exception. Other national laboratories are managed by contractors. STRATEGIC PLAN research community. The facilities capabilities are driven by the Departments mission needs and are created through the Departments competencies. These accelerators, colliders, light sources, lasers, neutron sources, materials fabrication and characterization facilities. renewable energy test Facilities, and gene sequencing facilities are used annually by more than 26,000 users from academia, industry. national laboratories, and other government agencies. The Department is also home to some of? the world?s most powerful scienti?c computers and leads the world in simulation capabilities that couple cotnputer modeling with experimental validation. 1v?irtually all of" these Facilities operate under a model of" cooperative stewardship with other federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the National institutes of lealth, and the Department of Defense. The Department plays a critical role in ensuring the intellectual vitality of the US. technical enterprise by sponsoring research at 540 colleges and universities and supporting approximately 5,800 Faculty and postdoctoral Fellows and 3,600 graduate students. This broad range oFscicnce, technology, and engineering activities is an essential complement to national laboratory etiorts and helps drive innovation and sustain US. leadership itt many disciplines. It also creates a training pipeline oi'scientists and engineers, one of the most important results of the Departmenth research and development. Equally important, a vibrant capacity in the sciences enables the United States to exploit discoveries occurring anywhere in the world. Many of the Department?s activities are designed to work with the private sector to achieve our energy, environmental and competitiveness goals. Applied science and engineering disciplines solve energy problems. Because we and guide scienti?c concepts From basic research through technology development in a small set of cases, through to pilot and facilities?the Department is uniquely capable of leveraging scienti?c discovery into technical innovation. Translation to the private sector is accomplished in part through extensive interactions between the national laboratories and the private sector. Environmental cleanup contractors are crucial partners in the Department?s ongoing efforts to clean up the environmental contamination resulting From nuclear weapons development, production, and government?sponsored nuclear energy research. The Oilice of Environmental Management employs more than 30,000 contractors, including scientists, engineers, and hazardous waste technicians, for nuclear cleanup activities at 18 sites in 1 states. Power marketing administrations (Bonneville Power Administration, Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and W'estern Area Power Administration) are Department agencies subject to Secretarial supervision and control. The authority vested in the Secretary with respect to the power U.S. Department of. Energy marketing administrations has been delegated to the Deputy Secretary, The power marketing adminiStrations were created to sell and transmit power generated from letleral water projects and have since grown to service signi?cant parts of- the country. These administrations offer experience in power generation and transmission activities, and can demonstrate and deploy new technologies and capabilities into the electric grid. They also provide opportunities For transmitting and integrating rcnewably generated electricity into their electric systems, Grant and ?nancing mechanisms allow the Department to catalyze market adoption of? maturing technologies from Small Business innovation Research (SEIR) grants, designed to promOte private development oftechnical innovations and the commercialization ofscienti?c instrumentation, to loan guarantees that enable initial market penetration and facilitate commercialescale deployment of innovative energy technologies. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is the nations premier so ttrce of independent statistical information about energy production and use. The ETA collects, analyzes, and disseminates impartial energy information in support oF sound policy-*making, efficient markets, and public understanding oiienergy and its interaction with the economy and the environment. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve provides an emergency stockpile of petroleum to protect the United States against petroleum supply disruptions by domestic and international events. The Department plays an important role across the hill spectrum ofnuclear science and technology, From weapons design and production to nuclear power and isotope production. Through the National Nuclear Security Ad ministration (NNSA), the Department is responsible for the management and security of the nation?s nuclear weapons, nuclear nonproliltrradon, and naval reactor programs. This collection of expertise and capabilities is embodied in the nuclear security complex?NNSAJs three weapons laboratories, the Pantex Plant, the Kansas City Plant, the 12 National Security Complex, the Savan nah River Site, and the Nevada National Security Site?that Form the core oFan integrated design, manufacture, and test capability for maintaining the nation?s nuclear deterrence. These assets, along with the civilian national laboratories and academia, position the Department uniquely in addressing problems at the nexus of energy, climate, and security, including nonproliferation, naval nuclear propulsion, management of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear counter?terrorism, nuclear and radiological emergency response, and arms control. The Departments oFDeiiense and Homeland Security, the intelligence community, the electric utility sector, and the medical community are all cusromers {or these capabilities. The Department also supports research in nuclear science, technology that advances the science, and training the next-generation nuclear world'ro rce. STRATEGIC PLAN Goal: Catalyze the timely, material, and ef?cient transformation of the nation?s energy system and secure US. leadership in clean energy technologies. These ?ndings in the Department offs/trig}! Organization Act, a 34?year?old text de?ning the Departments role in energy, rernain broadly applicable today. Reducing dependence on oil and reducng greenhouse are two major challenges in today?s U.S. energy. systems. These challenges are daunting. From 19.7? to 2010,. the gap, between total annual. U3. imports and export of crude oil increased by. man than 933 million barrels (nearly :?Xlthough there has been progress on local environmental concerns, the global threat olielevated greenhouse gas concentrations is now widely recognized, and related eliects are better understood. The Department is committed to ads-'ancing> solutions to these dangerous climatic trends. thile access to affordable and reliable energy has been the cornerstone of Americas economic growth. the nation?s physical, and social, systems, that produce, store, transmit, and use energy remain de?cient in several important dimensions. Driven by environmental, economic, and social itnpaCts, President Obama has set the following speci?c targets: Reduce energy?related greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020' and 83% by 2050. from a 2005 baseline. international Petroleum (Oil) Imports and Exports. 2010. US. Energy Information Administration. Available at U.S. Department of. Energy 10 - By 3,85, 80% ofr?tmerica?s electricity will come From clean energy sources.? - Pitt 1 million electric vehicles on US. roads by 2W5.- Currently more than Sti?i?ii of total US. primary energy3 and more than 9.5% of U.S. transportation Fuel comes From Fossil these percentages are expected to change little over the next 25 years under a businessrasrusual scenarior'?i W'hile US. energy consumption and carbon-dioxide emissions are also expected to increase signi?cantly in this scenario, global energy consumption will rise more than twice as quickly due to growing population and increasing development in non?Organisation For Economic (in?operation and Development (UECD) countries.q Likewise, water is integral to many energy technologies, and related water demands could he amplified in the future if climate change alters regional water cycles. Our energy technology activities should be cognizant of this interdependence. This contest frames the challenge before us: to achieve our longrtertn energy and environmental goals, we must change our current energy paradigm through concerted effort across public and private sectors. Although the scale of this challenge dictates that the necessary transformation of our energy systems will not be completed soon, eiTorts to Facilitate an ongoing energy transFormation will improve national security, the balance otitrade. and demonstrate U.S. leadership on global challenges. This document is not a national energy plan? but rather a strategy Focused on the capabilities and authorities of? the Department, and grounded in sitnple assumptions regarding the path to meet our national goals. Petroleum use will be decreased by raising Fuel economy standards, gradual electri?cation of the vehicle l'leet, and increasing production olf advanced biofuels. Greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced through improved ef?ciency, accelerated deployment of low?carbon energy generation technologies l{including conventional renewable, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage), modernization of the electric grid, and public policy. The Department has substantial assets it can bring to bear as appropriate, including basic scientific discovery, invention, applied research, full?scale technology demonstrations, deployment ?nancing, policy analysis, and information and education resources. US. energy infrastructure is primarily owned and operated by the private sector, and will continue to be dominated by conventional energy ?Clean energy is defined in the context of the 'Clean iinergy Standard as renewables, nuciear, gas, and Fossil energy with carbon capture and storage. Herr Sheer: ibe Stare President {Nannie} Firm to ?We the Home. am I . Available at cei2ill it'll 1 i2 mimosa! [Energy Outlook Et'Ht'} with. Projections m. 20.3 5, Figure 1 data. 2010. U5. iinergy iniinmation Administration. Available at rl?fonrfrijy Harem I Hervey}, Table 2.5. 2010. US. iinergy information Administration. Available at goviF'I 1 2pde "Iii/i Energy 20H fang}! Referee. 'i'able A2. am I . linergy information Administration. Energy Harries)?: 20ft?). U. US. linergy information Adn'iinistration. Available at r"Irhe DOE 'Quadrennial 'l'echnology Review will be a ?rst step in developing a national energy plan. Other agencies will have to be involved with a national plan. STRATEGIC PLAN resources. even as we embark. on its transformation. Tints, it is the private sector that will have to make the largest share of the investments needed to deploy clean energy technologies at scale. Our strategy will be to prioritize our resources rigorously and highly leverage the assets at our. disposal. Signi?cant authorities. relevant to energy production and use reside outside the. Department with such agencies. as the. US. Environmental. Protection Agency and the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, interior, and Agriculture. Accordingly, the Department must leverage its efforts and work in concert with policies and regulations established by other agencies and state and local governments to ensure safe, secure, and environmentally benign energy for our country throughout this transformation. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Laying the Foundation for a Clean Energy Economy The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) channeled an unprecedented amount of funds through the Department in record time. TliisF?rc?ctii-anjedEly. ARRA funding and an increased ?scal year 2009 appropriation, together 0.5. DEPARTMENT representing an 18?% increase over the prior year, stress?tested every part of - - OF ENERGY our organization?from program managers to procurement and legal staff. The Recovery Act provided the opportunity for new, extensive projects. In energy, projects include tax credits spurring innovation across the energy industry, construction of a significant portion of the world's capacity to manufacture t? Wilt? ll? advanced vehicle technology batteries, and energy efficiency grants available to every state, county, and large city. These projects are driving economic growth I . . .. -- . "Eigenmgg - .- . now, while laying the foundation for our long?term prosperity through a clean energy economy. In the first 18 months after passage, the Department of Energy accomplished many things. including the following: Making the grant application review process more rigorous, including recruiting participation from the nation?s best engineering and scientific professionals, and carrying out over 30,000 reviews of applications in a 1-year time frame. . - Funding over. 8,000. projects that are. laying the. foundation to a new, clean energy economy: renewable energy deployment, energy. efficiency, advanced vehicles and fuels, grid modernization, science and innovation, environmental cleanup, and carbon capture and storage. I Leveraging the Department?s $35.2 billion in Recovery Act appropriations and $15 billion in U.S. Treasury tax incentive programs with private capital funds that will support over $100 billion in clean energy projects. - Expanding and accelerating the research mission of our national laboratories with $3 billion. - Supporting small businesses around the country with over $8.2 billion in grants, contracts. loan guarantees, and tax credits. Several of these companies have already gone public. . - Creating and saving over. 40,000?50,000 full-time jobs each quarter. 11 U.S. Department of. Energy Improvements in energy efficiency are among the most cost?effective and immediate steps toward our national energy goals. However. economyrwide efficiency earl be achieved only through aggregated improvement of individual buildings. facilities. vehicles, and equipment. The Department has a unique role in de?ning end~use standards for appliances; and other electronic devices and informs the vehicle fuel economy standards set by r; i the Department ofTransportation.' we will strive for global leadership in hoth the underlying technical rigor and the impaet ofef?cieney standards. .The Department 1 will achieve the following: .7 1. Enforce the standards we have in place. 2. Review minimum appliance ef?ciency standards. at. least every 5. years. 3. Develop standards and processes. to address the entire spectrum ofenergy intensities for a given product class, not just the least for most} ef?cient limits. 4. leverage preeompetitive research and development to understand the. potential and litnits for new technologies to improve building, appliance, vehicle, and industrial ef?ciency while providing economic benefits. The Department will develop efficiency standards and test procedures to address at least 773% of the energy used in the building sector. In addition to appliance standards, the Department will ttse a variety ofother mechanisms to achieve signi?cant savings in the energy that is consumed in buildings and the 30% used in industry. _The Department will advance new approaches for improving the ef?ciency ofour nation?s homes. buildings, and facilities. Improvements in. conventional. vehicle. ef?ciency can. significantly affect. the 30% of US. energy used for transportation. The Department will partner with industry to discover and promote adoption of materials, aerodynamics, engines and power train technologies that improve vehicle ef?ciency and will inform regulatory bodies across the government ofopportunities for increased fuel economy. The Department will work to help meet the Presidents goal to deploy I million electric vehicles by 5. Highway Tri?e Sia?n: Administration Elven/gr frontier}- Standards Passenger Cairns and Light Fraser ?rfarfef 201 1. Department ofTransportation. Available at Rulemakingr?Rulesir?tssoeiatet ?i?bZUFilesr?Cr?tFE Updated Final Rule MY201 l.pdf 12 STRATEGIC PLAN Targeted Outcomes: 1' DOE and the U.S. Department oFl?lousing and Urban Development will work together to enable the energy retro?ts ofa total oF 1.1 million housing units by the end oiliscal year 2013. DOE. programs will contribute to retrofits of an estimated 1 million housing units (i ligh Priority Performance Goal].I Facilitate the transition to a more energyaef?cient economy by establishing or ttpdating ef?ciency standards and best practices, at least six appliance standards annually and establishing an American National Standards institute. ?aecredited commercial and industrial energy?ethciency certification process by 2015. The United States has the opportunity to lead the world in a new industrial revolution to manufacture the clean energy technologies we need and create the jobs of the future. To ensure America?s competitiveness in this and achieve ottr energy goals. we must develop and deploy clean energy technologies in ottr nation. Adoption of innovative technologies by both consumers and industry is necessary to make. meaningful progress. on ottr. energy challenges. Today?in the. absence of stable. comprehensive energy policies that re?ect the true costs oFtraditional energy technologies?the private scetor is not adopting clean energy technologies rapidly enough to achieve our national energy goals. The Department can advance this process by reducing tislc for early adopters of the most promising technologies. The Department will address two primary issues to unlock ?nancing: 1) low unsubsidized returns for renewable energy compared to traditional sources; and 2] heightened risk. both technology and policy. associated with innovative clean energy technologies. in the near term. the Departments loan programs play. a. critical role in. catalyzing investment in clean energy. loan guarantees lower the cost oF capital For companies. allowing them to develop clean energy projects that would otherwise not be ?nancially feasible. The Department's dtte diligence review protuutes private ?nancing of sound technologies. illio ensure the Department can evaluate success in implementing the aspirations of this Strategic Plan. each goal includes a number otispecil'ic performance measures called uTargeted Outcomes.? Unless noted otherwise in the text. all Targeted Outcome dates refer to the calendar year. JDOEs High Priority Performance lGoals {HPl-?GsJ?developed in response to a Presidential directive provide direct value to the public andror relleet key agency missions; the present performance outcomes that can be evaluated and are also quantifiable and measureable. The seven current DOE HPPG goals represent Departmental areas that reflect signi?cant yet achievable challenges requiring cross?DUE. resources and focus to aecotnplish. More information is available at 13 U.S. Department of Energy Moving Forward, we will use integrated planning, budgeting, and administration to harmonize the Department's clean energy eil?orts across stages ol?the development cycle, from basic and applied research through pilot and demonstration projects. The Department will use its Loan Guarantee Program to accelerate the domestic commercial deployment of innovative and advanced clean energy technologies to scale. Targeted Outcomes: Double renewable energy generation (excluding conventional hydropowet and biopower) by 2012 [High Priority Performance Goal}. Support battery manufacturing capacity for 500,011?) plug?in hybrid electric vehicles a year by 2013 (High, Priority Performance Goal). Complete a comprehensive assessment?by September 20 1 Z?of materials degradation issues For light?water reactor plants operating beyond years. Today?s electric grid needs to. be, more ef?cient, reliable, and secure. . A modern, smarter electric grid may save consumers money, help our economy run more efficiently, allow rapid growth in renewable energy sources, and enhance energy reliability. 1 iowever, new technology will only be deployed ifutilities, including public power distributors, gain con?dence in the associated integrated system performance. The Department will therefore promote well~instrumented microgrids for understanding the performance of new technologies in real?life settings, where industry and researchers alike will access these capabilities via open, peer?reviewed competition. Similarly, the Department will work with utilities and system operators to understand and characterize new technologies and operating strategies within the bulk power system and facilitate the transition to a cleaner electricity sector. IGrid assets can be used efficiently only when the system and its components are well understood. Recent system sensor deployments are providing greater insight than ever into the operation of the. electric grid. and the Department will. partner with industry to ensure the knowledge gained is widely disseminated and incorporated into industry standard models, tools, and devices. W'e will develop technologies and operational methods that can better integrate variable, renewable energy sources with fossil fueled sources. including automated and control of conventional systems and renewable energy sources. Similarly, the introduction of storage. and other technologies, as well as improved operational methods, will enable more Flexible and cilicicnt control oi? the electric grid. The Department will facilitate the demonstration and deployment technologies For applications ranging from frequency regulation to bulkrenergy management. The introduction of technologies into the grid, together with the transition to an actively controlled distribution network, significantly expands the challenges to grid security. The Department will monitor new threats and work with industry and other federal agencies to create security and communication standards while Facilitating hardening infrastructure to ensure continued reliability. of the energy infrastructure. 14 STRATEGIC PLAN Targeted Outcomes: - Enable better understanding and control of our electric grid by installing more than 1000 measurement units by 2013. Deploy more than 26 million smart meters in American homes and businesses by 2013. Reduce utility?scale energy storage costs 30% by 20] 5. The one?year anniversary oF the h-"lacondo well blowout is a reminder oF the environmental risks associated with exploring {or and producing oil and natural gas. As the nation transitions to the clean energy economy of the future, we must also that we effectively mitigate the tislts ofour current energy The oil and gas industry will continue to meet our economy?s immediate needs by pushing into increasingly dif?cult frontiers, including deepwater operations offshore and unconventional gas onshore. The Department will ensure that, the Federal governments understanding of the risks associated with these operations keeps pace. This will be accomplished through scientific. assessment oiithe risks, potential impacts, and adequacy ol-curtent response and mitigation technologies. The Department is uniquely suited to address this research challenge. The Department brings expertise and experience in geospatial engineering and modeling, ?uid ?ow in porous media, underground containment in engineered natural systems, mechanicalistructural stress analysis, complex ?uid ?ow simulations, and other relevant research areas. The Department has an unrivaled capability For technological innovation, and the urgency to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 has set a relentless clock {or our response. Because signi?cant market penetration in the energy supply sector can talce 20 years or more. the Department will focus on technologies that can con?dently be predicted to enter commercial application at a minimum of quadrillion British thermal units (quad) annually by 2030 {about l?i?h ofcurrenr U.S. primary energy). ?We will pursue technologies that can have the greatest impact on national energy goals within this time horizon, avoiding technologies of limited applicability or resource. \We will employ innovative Funding mechanisms where appropriate to drive down the time from conception to commercialization. Additionally, because innovation is essential to meeting our goals, we will dedicate 10% oF out?. energy technology portfolio to inventing new platforms with, the potential to be technically and economically competitive. 15 U.S. Department of Energy r?e will conduct timely. relevant research and development programs that can demonstrably impact the energy system. Because the Department neither manulacuires not sells commercial?scale energy technologies. our best itnpact is in the generation and use of broadly applicable analytical tools, validated engineering design rules. and data from test beds to help generate. assess. and mature novel energy technologies. This work must be done in close collaboration with the private sector, which is the agent of technology deployment. important new strategy elements are included in the Following subsections. New Research Structures. The Department has traditionally pursued technology innovation through focused progratns addressing known gaps in understanding and technology performance. To enable commercialization of new energy technologies at the pace required by national goals. we will pursue research that blurs the boundaries between science. engineering, and technology development maintains a focus on research and development where the federal role is strongest. W?e will be more goal?oriented and multidisciplinary; we will work to better couple basic and applied work; and we will encourage academiarlaboratory?industry partnerships. W?e will also promote technology development that addresses market needs. Improving industry?s early insight into technology development can accelerate its deployment, and improving researchers: understanding of industrial needs and constraints can lead to more effective innovation. \We have developed a portfolio of new research eiiorts. including Energy Frontier Research Centers. Energy Innovation Hubs. Advanced Research Projects Agency? Energy and Manufacturing Energy System Partnerships to provide integration across disciplinary boundaries as well as across multiple phases of ?e will use Energy Frontier Research Centers where we ave identi?ed key scienti?c barriers to energy breakthroughs, and we believe we can clear these roadblocks faster by linking together small groups of researchers across departments. schools. and institutions. We will use Energy Innovation Hubs to focus research and development efforts on problems ready for side=by-side integration ofdiscovery=oriented scienti?c research with translational engineering research so that opportunities for commercialization are recognized as early in the development life cycle as possible. Wife will use ARPAJE, a new funding organization within the Department. to search for new technologies rather than the creation ofnew scienti?c knowledge or the incremental improvement of existing technologies. we will use Manufacturing Energyr System Partnerships to perform concurrent technology development and manufacturing systems design to reduce the cost and time for commercial?scale deployment of new. lowrcarbon systems. 16 STRATEGIC PLAN Energy Systems Simulation. we will Facilitate the transFer oFour computer simulation capability to industry with the goal ofaccelerating energy technology innovation by improving designs, compressing the design cycle and easing transitions to scale, thereby enhancing Ub. economic competitiveness. Applications could include combustion technologies, carbon capture, ?ssion reactors, grid operation and optimization, and underground Fluid transport and storage. The Department will create open soFtware tools where none exist and will work. with indusuy to advance the capability ol?standard toolsets. Targeted Outcomes: - r?tRPi?t?F. will catalyze by FY EDI 2 the development oF transformative and potentially disruptive energy technologies; drive the transition taillight?impact energy innovations toward market adoption; contribute to the advancement of 1.1.5. leadership and global competitiveness in energy innovation; and build itself: as an innovative, highly effective, anti sustainable organization. Reduce upfront rislt and cost associated with geologic technologies.. including carbon sequestration and geothermal energy systems. by validating at least two new innovative exploration techniques For geologic reservoirs by 2014. Validate high??delity simulations of internal combustion engines, fission, and convention-.1] power plants in commercial use by 12(115, thereby integrating high? peri?ormance computer simulation into the industrial energy sector. Demonstrate advanced inspection techniques For irradiated Fuel at the irradiated Materials Characterization Laboratory. Develop by 2020 innovative solutions for highway transportation electric drive components leg, battery energy storage, electric motors, and electric power management} that enable cost?efiective use of electric vehicles, signi?cantly reducing oil use and greenhouse gas emissions. Moving laboratory inventions into the con'in'iercial sector where products can be scaled and deployed for public use and benefit is essential if new energy technologies are to have a real impact. To promote commercialization, the Department will partner with the private sector and other federal agencies to move technologies from proof?Jobconcept to full-scale deployment. we will expand contracting vehicles between industry and national laboratories, and lower transaction costs for those willing to develop and deploy the early-state innovations arising in the laboratories. The Department will seelt to develop innovative contractor?led technology transfer mechanisms that can be deployed within the current framework. and will also increasingly seek to partner in the support oFsmall businesses and high?growth companies that can create jobs in the clean energy sector. 1? U.S. Department of Energy \We will encourage the private sector to translate our research and development outputs to market through SBIR, Small Business ?l'echnology 'l'ransler ARPA-E, Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, and loan guarantees. The newly initiated SBIR Phase Xlerator Program provides tip to 3 years of Phase ?tnding to the most promising clean energy technologies and companies that are on the threshold of high?growth job creation. Targeted Outcomes: Encourage industry to translate our research and development outputs to market through new contractual vehicles that lower transaction costs and address commercialiration barriers. The commercialization, broad diFiitsion, and regulatory approval oFa new energy technology requires high confidence in its performance. Industry, regulators, and policy makers must have high confidence in issues ranging from technology performance to environmental impact, as operational uncertainty increases early adopter risk, slows market penetration, and presents environmental risks. A successful characterization oFa new technology at scale can reduce these risks and speed adoption. The Department will continue to develop the capability to evaluate and characterise the performance oiienergy technologies in operational environments so that system?level performance, benefits, challenges, and environmental risks can be well understood prior to commercialization and deployment. The Department will make these testbed and demonstration capabilities available to researchers and industry alike, with resources allocated through open, peer?reviewed competition. \ther'e appropriate, we will pursue?in collaboration with indusrry a limited number of" demonstration projects with the greatest potential to catalyze wide?scale adoption. Targeted Outcomes: - Complete at least two new national technology user facilities by 2015. Complete small modular reactors design certi?cation by 2016. Develop cellulosic ethanol technologies by 2012 that can Facilitate mature production costs less than $2.00i?gallon. Bring at least 5 commercial?scale carbon capture and storage demonstrations online by 2016. Use research and development results of laboratory through pilot?scale tests to show, through engineering and systems analyses studies. 90% CO4, capture of advanced and prercornbustion capture technologies with potential for no more than a 35% increase in the levelized cost of electricity for postacombustion and no more than a 109i} increase in the levelized cost of electricity for pre?combustion when compared to a reference power plant. 18 STRATEGIC PLAN State and Local Governments, Utilities, and Retailers. State and local governments. utilities. and retailers who interact directly anti regularly with consumers are key enablers of the deployment of new energy technologies. Partnerships and constructive competition and benchmarking across jurisdictions can be important tools For overcoming informational, permitting, financing, and other types olibarriers that impede the deployment oi?cost?eil?ective clean energy and ef?ciency technologies. The Department has longstanding programs that provide grants to state and local governments for deployment of energy ef?ciency and renewable energy technologies, including technical assistance on policy issues. The Department will continue to support state policies to address climate and energy. challenges. and seek to replicate best practices From state experience at the. national level. International. Because the greatest energy challenges are global in nature. the Department will faster international partnerships to advance our contnton goals for developing and deploying clean energy technologies and addressing climate change. energy security, and energy scarcity. The Department?s strategy for developing these partnerships Focuses on engaging other major economies and participating in broader regional. platForms. for cooperation. Thus, the Department, works. with the Department of? State, as delegated and where appropriate, to lead aetivities such as the Clean Energy Ministerial and participate in bilateral and multilateral agreements such as the Li.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center and the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas. Technologies must be deployed globally if they are to materially impact consumption and emissions. U.S. leadership through the Department can help promote clean energy technologies around the world. Other countries can have greater demand, pace, risk. andior. tolerance in energy innovation. international partnerships could oiler more diverse projects to increase learning rates, promote the global adoption of clean energy technologies, and perhaps ease foreign market entry for U.S. ?rms. However, intellectual property anti competitiveness issues will be carefully managed. Intetagency Engagement. In addition to authorities assigned to the Department, more than a dozen federal agencies have signi?cant authorities relevant to the development. and deployment of innovative energy technologies. Standards, siting, and permitting are just a lies-v of the many energy issues that involve multiple agencies. Supporting a whole?oilngernment approach to Administration policy objectives, the Department will actively consult and coordinate with other agencies. leveraging additional capacity and reducing redundancy. For example, data from the testing and validation of innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies by the Department. oi Defense can directly inForm DOE?applied technology programs. ?Whenever possible and appropriate, DOE will work with the Department of? Defense to demonstrate innovative technologies, including on military installations, thus accelerating the development of'energy solutions for defense and nondeiense applications. DUE will continue coordinating with the Department of interior, U5. 19 U.S. Department of Energy Department oFi?lousing and Urban Development, Department oFCommerce, U.S. Department ol?State, US. Environmental l?roteCtion Agency, US. Department of Agriculture, and other agencies as appropriate to develop and implement integrated federal energy policies and programs. Educational Institutions. The Department has long-standing programs that provide grants and contracts; to educational institutions for research anti development, infrastructure support, training, scholarships, and internships. Partnerships with educational institutions encourage more students to explore careers in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Fields. Specifically, support oiminority serving instittitions fuels the pipeline oi? future scientists and engineers in ?elds. Minority-serving institutions? Which include historically Black colleges and universities, Tribal colleges and universities, and Hispanic?serving institutions?primarily serve underrepresented minority populations and are a valuable and unique resource to the Departments mission. Supporting these educational institutions will create a diverse workForee, spurring innovation in the clean energy seetor. Given the scale, longevity, and incumbency oi energy systems, energy policy can be the most effective tool for promoting our energy goals. Energy policy development is a collaborative process among many stakeholders in the executive and legislative branches oithe federal government. The Department plays a unique role in ensuring the processes oiin Forming, shaping, and supporting energy and related environmental policies are underpinned by sound principles and analyses. The Department will strive to remain a highly trusted authority for informing energy policy decisions. The Department must marshal its exrensive knowledge oFenergy technologies, energy iniiraStructure, energy markets, and consumer behavior to provide unimpeachable analyses that inform policy makers, management, and the private seetor. \We will support objective, thorough technology assessments, including analyses of? technology dilTusion and adoption paths that avoid technology advocacy. The Department also has strong capabilities in climate modeling, large?scale ecological ?eld experiments, atmospheric radiation measurements, and simulation methodologies that promise to improve the accuracy and precision oFclimate predictions. A particular Focus will be on projecting regional impacts to better inform policymakers and communities planning for the future. The Department will also inform policy for future international accords by engaging its technical base, in cooperation with other government agencies and nations, in developing anti validating methodologies to monitor greenhouse gas emissions at local, regional, and national scales. 20 STRATEGIC PLAN National energy goals will be achieved only through economy-wide energy trans?eration. The Department will use its technical expertise and analytic capabilities in a transparent and tlnbiased manner to inform decisions in government policy?making. the marketplace, and households. Because today?s young generation are tomorrow's world leaders, we will champion outreach through competitions, project?based learning, interactive. gaming, and social. media. By using today?s technologies to inspire the most aspirational and imaginative citizens, we Will momentum necessary [0 meet ()Lll' CIICIEF $03.15. The Department will actively participate in the development and implementation ofa coordinated national energy education or Het?tergy literacyn effort. Pt modest understanding of energy sources, generation, use and conservation strategies will enable in Formed decisions on topics From home energy use to international energy policy. The Department will. leverage relationships with academic institutions, other Federal. agencies, industry, organizations, and Other. stakeholders. to improve awareness and understanding of energy issues. Targeted Outcomes: Identify by 2012 the mom promising educational opportunities to improve domestic energy literacy. Provide online energy literacy content by 2013 for the National Training and Education Resource platform. The Department is uniquely positioned to lead by example in trans?irming domestic energy use. Integrating sustainability throughout the Department is an essential aspect of implementing Executive lU'rder 135 14, Federal Leadership in Fire?gy. arid Freeware and Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Feraf'errtir hairdresser/trail energy. and Treasperrsrien as well as related statutes, and meeting or exceeding all required energy management and environmental goals. As stated in the US. Deparmierir af?nergii .S'rmregre .S'rormimr?ifinr Performance Plan (8513)," the Department will redttce greenhouse gas emissions from onsite combustion of Fossil Fuel, Fugitive emissions, and purchased power by 28% and reduce emissions From otitside sources?such as business travel and employee eommuting?by 13% by 2020. We will Strive. to exceed. these goals at our own facilities by incorporating sustainability into all corporate management decisions. continually improving our redeem? leadership in Keener, mm" Et'rmomfr I?es?armenee. 200?). lixecutive Order l3514, Oi?i'i ce or the President. Available at eo rel.pdf. itgrrerigrfaenmg Eidemi' Erierga our! ?rmspermrieri rlferirtgemenr. Elli}? Executive lOrder 13423, Of?ce orthe President, rivailable at Department? offsein .Srmregie Sin-Mommas}: Piers Dossier-frag Sanctions re Power and Seems: Arrierirvri' Report re the White Hearse Camera! are Eris-viranraerirm' erm?iry and (wire and Budget, .Sepremfier 2030. Available at http:waw.energygovrmediaiDOE Sustainability Plan 21 U.S.. Department of Energy operations and existing infrastructure to maximize eF?eienr use oFenergy and natural resources, and ensuring, whenever built, nets-v facilities are highl}r energ}r e?icienL The Department will partner with other federal agencies to in?uence energy consumption anti sustainability across the government, accelerating the diffusion expertise and technologies to achieve the goals of the Executive Ilthlers and the ?greening? of the federal government. Targeted Outcome: it?"Iaintain the Department?s path in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 28% by 202i] From a 2008 baseline and assist other Federal agencies in achieving their reduction targets, 22 STRATEGIC PLAN Goal: Maintain a vibrant U.S. effort in science and engineering as a cornerstone of our economic prosperity with clear leadership in strategic areas. The Department supports basic research into tlte smallest constituents of matter; the most ?eeting subatomic, atomic, and chemical transitions; and the structure and properties (ii?materials and biological systems. \We are the largest federal Funder oi'physical sciences.1 lOur research extends. understanding of: nature: enables new technologies that support the Departments energy, and security missions; and improves the quality of life of all Americans. Scienti?c discovery Feeds technology development and, conversely, teclmology advances enable scientists to pursue. an. ever more challenging set ofquestions. The Department will strive to. maintain leadership in fields where this leedback is particularly strong, including materials science research. bio?energy research, and high?performance computing. The. Department?s science program is unique. among federal research agencies in. the extent to which it enables discoveries and innovation through investments in the design, construction, and operations oFunique, world?leading Facilities and research tools For discovery. its technical enterprise will not remain vital without a continual upgrading and full. exploitation of the experimental and computational tools that advance discoveries. 'l'hese tools for discovery in science often push technology development earlier and harder than almost any other activity. The Department has core technology research competencies in nuclear systems, security, and reliability systems, accelerator and detector technologies, light. sources and associated diagnostics, attd pulsed power systems. The Department?s research also plays an important role in a high?technology economy through the skilled technical workforce that worlc and train in these diverse activities. The Departmentjs basic research programs address Fundamental quesrions in the physical sciences and produce novel hardware and theoretical and analytical tools with applications well beyond the speci?c science. Furthermore, this discoveryaoriented research produces highly trained researchers who apply their research skills to more immediate problems. The Department invests resources so that the US. research community can maintain meaningful, and in some instances, world?leading research capabilities. Subatomic Physics. The Department is the primary government sponsor of? research in particle and nuclear physics. These ?elds also steward isotope research and developn'tent and accelerator technology development, two activities with demonstrable societal impact. The quest for knowledge at the extreme scales of energy and space reveals the basic building blocks oi?the universe. This research will 'fisvi'emt? Frtrids?tr Research tract Driz'rt?opmerit: n'am' ir?Evm' 200.7109. ZUIU. NSF 10?305. Table 22, National Science Foundation. Available at 23 U.S. Department of Energy continue to illuminate questions about the uni?cation oFthe Forces anature, the structure oF black holes, the origins oF the universe, the structure oF nuclei, and the nature oFdarlc energy and matter. Targeted Outcomes: Complete construction oF physics Facilities by the end oF the decade at Jell?erson Laboratory and Michigan State University to test quantum chromodynamics, the theory oF nuclear Forces, and produce exotic nuclei oF relevance in astrophysical processes. Perform a series of experiments through 2020 in the intensity, energy and cosmological Frontiers to illuminate questions about the uni?cation oF the Forces oF nature, the structure oF black holes, and the origins oF the universe. Chemical and Materials Research. At the atomic and molecular scales. the Department pursues world?class research in Fundamental properties oF materials and chemistry that explores the origins oF macroscopic behaviors and their Fundamental connections to atomic, molecular, and electronic structures. At the core of the Department?s chemical and materials sciences programs is the quest For the deterministic design and discovery anevv materials and chemical assemblies with novel structures, Functions, and properties. To accomplish this goal, the portFolio stresses the need to probe, understand, and control the interactions onhonons, photons, electrons, and ions with matter to direct and control energy Flow over multiple titne and length scales. Growing capabilities to and characterize materials and chemical processes are converging with advances in simulation (theory, modeling, and computation) to create new opportunities For materials and chemistry by design. Our sources, Freevelectron anti ultra?Fast lasers, electron microscopy, and neutron sources expand our ability to ?see? and understand materials and their properties to ever smaller length and time scales, while improved theory and modeling is moving to increasingly larger systems oFatoms and longer time scales. The Department has developed world?leading capabilities to produce and probe materials at temperature and pressure extremes. Static and dynamic compression techniques, coupled with ultraFast diagnostic. techniques, have given insight into conditions comparable to those observed in a variety oF astrophysical systems such as the cores oF the giant planets or exploding supernovae. Accurate properties oF materials in these extreme environments, previously only inFerred From observations, will help to improve theory and modeling oFthese and other exotic objects in the universe. Targeted Outcomes: Explore the construction and use oFX?ray Free electron lasers and the next generation oF light sources. Develop and explore a broad spectrum oF new materials that have novel properties, such as catalytic activity, electrothertnal behavior, radiation resistance, or strength, or others-vise contribute to the advancement ofenergy technologies by 2020. 24 STRATEGIC PLAN Climate Science. The Department supports basic and policy?relevant research a predictive, systems?level underStanding ofclimate. The carbon cycle and the rich interplay oil-soils and microbes with the atmosphere are particular areas of expertise.,.These, activities combine. ?eld experiments, global data collection, and simulations. ,The Department, will. continue. to. pursue predictive, climate, models at the regional spatial scale and dccadal time scale as part oFthc U5. lGlobal IChange Research Program and through the international science community. ?We will also incorporate forecasts oliglobal energy use and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions into climate modeling to provide a better sense ol'how the energy system, the economy, and the environment will interact. Climate science capabilities will inliorm wind and solar modeling] and system. management. Targeted Outcome: Determine the major sources of uncertainty in ottr understanding of the coupled climate system by Lil-115. Light Sources One of the Department?s most important contributions to the nation?s research and development portfolio is its support of major scientific facilities. These large? scale facilities are indispensable tools of Zist century science. As with most discovery science, facilities have often developed via unexpected avenues. For example, light?the light emitted by an electrical charge following a curved trajectory?was originally viewed as an undesirable byproduct of particle accelerators built to probe the fundamental laws of physics. However, by the 19703, the Department began to support the construction of large accelerators built entirely to produce and use light. These advanced light sources are among the world?s most powerful tools for research in a broad range of fields, including chemistry. advanced materials science, biology, medicine, and nanoscience, to name only a few. Three of the last six Nobel Prizes in chemistry were awarded for research using Department-supported radiation light sources. The fundamental tenet of materials research is that structure determines function. The practical corollary that converts materials research from an intellectual exercise into a foundation of our modern technology-driven economy is that structure can be manipulated to construct materials with specific desired behaviors. To this end, radiation has transformed the role of X-rays as a mainline tool for probing the atomic and electronic structure of materials and their surfaces. With the recent commissioning of the Lines Coherent Light Source at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and the construction of the National Light Source II at Brookhaven National Laboratory, the Department continues to support US. leadership in this research technology. This technology is one of the most critical?for both maintaining America?s competitive edge and producing the fundamental breakthroughs needed to address our pressing challenges in energy and climate. 25 U.S. Department of Energy Technical innovation is produced when new and Fundamental knowledge is combined with in?depth technical understanding of applied systems to create new capabilities. Engineering, tlte practice oi'science under constraints and performance requirements, can therefore be most innovative when coupled directly with scienti?c discos-'ety. l(liven the urgency ofour energy and security missions, we must enhance our capacity For technical innovation through a tight coupling of science and technology eFtorts across the Department. \With strategic investments, the Department will Foster the development anew technologies to make major contributions to our energy, environment, and security missions. These investments will enable the Department to locus its resources on forefront research optimized for timeliness, relevance, and impact. Materials in Energy and Security-Related Systems. Almost any energy-related whether those system bttilt today depends on materials with unique properties properties be strength. weight, energy content, electronic or optical properties. or resistance to high temperatures and radiation. This is also true ofnovel detection systems For national security applications such as screening for nuclear materials or remotersensing applications. Airplanes, automobiles, and other transportation vehicles depend on new materials that are lightweight and high strength, to achieve high?energy ef?ciency and increased safety. Next?generation wind systems will depend on similar materials to achieve high strength with lighter weight For improved lifetimes, system reliability, and reduced operating costs. Similarly, elecrronics used in energy systems depend on the processing of materials at nanometer scales and materials that possess as yet unavailable properties, including improved band-gap properties, improved junction materials, and tailored thermal properties all at lower cost. Examples from other technology areas of the types of advances needed in energy systems include introduction into the modern telecommunications system of new materials based on glass optical fiber with transparency not imagined 4t] years ago; use oFsuperconducting materials that have enabled fabrication of magnets that are widely used today in imaging applications and accelerators; and development of alternatives to rare earth materials. ?l'he. Department will continue to support broadrbased research directed toward discovering new materials, and with the use oi'laboratory facilities such as the centers, laser facilities, neutron scattering facilities, and the nanoscience laboratories, characterize the properties of these materials For applications such as batteries, materials resistant to high temperatures and radiation, composite materials, and electronic devices. The Department will consider the role ol?rare earth materials in production ol?energy technologies. Bioenergy. The Department will continue to develop biotechnology solutions for energy, the environment, and carbon sequestration, with particular emphasis on costaefl?ective technologies For nextageneration production of biohtels. 26 STRATEGIC PLAN The Department will support research in the discovery, design, and or? biornirnetic and bioinspired functional approaches and energy?conversion processes based on principles and biological concepts. The emphasis is the creation of'robust, scalable, energy?relevant processes and systems that work with the extraordinary effectiveness of processes from the biological world. Areas otparticular focus include the following: Understand, control, and build complex hierarchical structures by imitating nature's seIF? and directed?assembly approaches. Design and environmentally adaptive, self?healing multicomponent systems that demonstrate energy conversion and storage capabilities Found in lCreate functional systems with collective properties not achievable by simply summing the individual components. Create biomimetic andi?or bioinspired routes for the oil materials. Develop science?driven tools and techniques for the characterization of biomolecular and soft materials. Genoniichbased systems biology research, agronomic strategies, and fundamental understanding of biological and chemical deconstruction of biomass are particularly important elements of these activities. Research supported in this area will have impacts beyond bioenergy, underpinning technologies such as batteries and Fuel cells, catalysis, hydrogen generation and storage, and membranes For advanced separation. Targeted Outcome: Apply systems biology approaches by 2015 to create viable hio?iels processes and greatly increase the understanding oftnicrobes in carbon?dioxide climate balance. Fusion Energy. Because litsion may have applicability to our energy mission in the long term, the Department will continue to pursue a program offusion science. technology. and energy research aimed at developing the scienti?c and technological Foundations needed to make a Fusion energy source. Progress over the last decades in this effort lies at our ability to pursue the nexr Frontier of. exploring burning plasmas, with and the National ignition Facility being the key research facilities. The Department is well positioned to exploit advances in high?energy density science, core expertise in pulsed power, laser and accelerator technology, and the demonstration oflaboratory ignition at the National Ignition Facility to advance technology relevant to inertial Fusion energy. Targeted Outcomes: Execute U5. responsibilities for construction of the ITER project. consistent with sound project management principles. 2? U.S. Department of Energy - FJ-tploit the National ignition Facility by 2012 in a credible National Ignition Campaign and establish an openrscience user program. Simulation has emerged as a critical tool for science and engineering. it enables the exploration of complex phenomena that are impossible to study in a laboratory (such as the Formation oi? galaxies or the global climate). and enables engineers to build a virtual prototype of a complex system and test its performance before physical construction. Beginning with the Manhattan Project in the 1940's. the Department and its predecessor organizations have. developed and exploited. the fastest computers of the day for simulations. In particular, over the past 15 years stockpile stewardship activities have combined computer modeling with laboratory experiments and historical test data to achieve unprecedented understanding and predictive capability for complex systems. in parallel. the Department has promoted the application of the world?s tnost capable computers to unclassilied science and engineering problems, in part through the development ol'open-community simulation. codes. The Department. will. continue to invest in the. applied mathematics. computer. science, and networking tools necessary to build upon this core competency in scienti?c simulation. The Department will perform research required to develop exascale computing platforms and associated software environments in support of energy. science, and security missions. The Department will continue to advance the frontiers of energy?ef?cient computing and supercomputng to enable greater computational capacity with lower energy. needs. Targeted Outcome: Continue to develop and deploy highrperi?ormance compuring hardware and software. systems through exascale platforms. Excellent scientists, technologists, and engineers are the creative engine of the Department. The Department and its national laboratories must cooperate to create conditions that allow today?s researchers to be as productive as possible. as well as to ensure an adequate supply of tomorrow?s researchers. investments will help develop the next generation oFscientists and engineers to support Department missions, administer its programs. and conduct the research that will realize the nation?s science and innovation. These. investments will enrich the diversity of the STEM pipeline so that it is more inclusive onomen. minorities. and persons with disabilities while mentoring the next generation oFscientists. technologists, and engineers. 28 STRATEGIC PLAN To conduct discovery and mission?driven researeh, Department laboratories must attract and retain a critical mass of! the most talented researchers. in discovery areas, access to unique facilities and a focus on research are powerful attractions, vvhile in the applied areas, t't'tultidisciplinary team science and the importance and urgency of? the mission are also important. Stability l[but not stasis] of ?tnding and the quality of colleagues also play a role. The Department will he relentless in ensuring the laboratories attract and retain a high quality. diverse workForce. The Department will continue to support students and educators through undergraduate and graduate support, postdoctoral Fellowships, laboratory internships, teachetrmentor programs, and national middle? and high?school science competitions. Continued emphasis will be placed on ensuring an adequate pipeline of? scientists and engineers in critical sltills areas essential to supporting the Department?s missions. The Department will help create educational and training programs involving energy literacy and energy ef?ciency. Expanded use ofadvanced learning and training technologies will enable high?quality, interactive education and training materials to be rapidly created and disseminated, and imprOve the Departments response to immediate and longer=term job training needs. Targeted Outcome: Provide support by 2015 to graduate students. in a manner designed to. address skill gaps identi?ed by senior Departmental leadership in the Department?s scienti?c and technical workforce. 29 U.S. Department of Energy Goal: Enhance nuclear security through defense, nonproliferation, and environmental effo tts. In his Prague speech' in April 2009, President ()bama described a world at a crossroads. The lCold war is over thousands of nuclear weapons remain. The risk ofa nuclear attack by terrorists or proliferant nations has increased, even as the threat of global nuclear war has gone down. The growing global demand For energy?coupled with increasing concerns about climate change?has accelerated deployment of nuclear power. plants, increasing proliferation risks. . The President presented a path forward to reduce nuclear danger while enabling access to peaceful nuclear. power for. all nations that respect. the international nonproliferation regime. This comprehensive agenda was described in the 2010 Nuclear Patrons Review Report (bilj?lill,2 prepared by the Department of Defense, in consultation with the Department of Energy and the Department oFState. The NPR set out live key objectives for out nuclear weapons policies and posture: i. Preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism; 2. Reducing the role nuclear weapons in US. national security strategy; 3. Maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at lower nuclear Force levels; 4. Strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U5. allies and partners; and 3. Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal. The Department?primarily through the National Nuclear Security Administration?is central to preventing proliferation and nuclear terrorism and sustaining a safe, secure, and effectch nuclear arsenal. \Wc have added responsibility for cleaning up the environmental legacy of the Cold \X?ar's nuclear weapons complex. Through engagement with the international Atomic Energy. Agency and directly with other international and interagency. partners, the Department has a leading role in nonproliferation and cooperative threat?reduction programs. This expertise positions the Department ideally to help shape policy surrounding Future deployment of? nuclear power globally. Just as the Department is the trusted authority on the safety, security, and effectiveness of the US. nuclear weapons stockpile, it. can apply. science, technology, and engineering to ensure future. nuclear power. systems can be deployed saier and securely with appropriate mitigation of risks from terrorism and proliferation. National laboratories bring their own expertise in support of the hill range of nuclear security work including nonproliferation, fuel cycles, nuclear Forensics, IRemarks by President Barack Obama in Prague, Czech Republic. 2009. Available at press of?cerJ JAINTUEIJETEF Posture Rem-en: Report. 2010'. Department of?Del'iense. Available at 30 STRATEGIC PLAN nuclear eounter?terrorism, nuclear and radiological emergency management, intelligence analysis, and treaty monitoring and veri?cation. Investments in these science, technology, and engineering capabilities were cited in the NPR as a means to reduce our reliance on large inventories of: nondeployed warheads, and to deal with technical surprise, thereby allowing additional reductions in the Ufi. nuclear stockpile and supporting the long?term path to zero. Since 1992, the ongoing Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program has enabled annual certification that the US. stockpile remains saFe and reliable without further nuclear testing. While the stockpile is being reduced to levels otltlined in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty Agreement, as supported by Nuclear Posture Review analysis, the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program and the capabilities and expertise it has developed and sustained remain essential to ensure the safety, security. and effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent. Targeted Outcomes: Complete annual assessments of the stockpile to ensure it is safe, secure, and effective {High Priority Performance Goal}. Deliver by 2020 a physics?based capability to enable assessment of weapon performance with quanti?ed uncertainties. 'Complete by 2022 the dismantlement of all weapons systems retired prior to 200?). Recapitaliae and modernize by 2022 plutonium and highly enriched uranium capabilities. The annual assessment process and lilierextension programs are both important components oi? a successful Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program. To meet national nuclear security goals, we must exercise the full spectrum of capabilities?From concept through design studies, to engineering prototypes and production, and ?nally to maintenance and dismantlement. important life? extension activities are beginning on the Ho] bomb and the W728 warhead to replace aging warhead components and to assess options for enhanced salety and security in these systems. Novel surveillance technologies, designed to provide more and higher-?delity data while sampling a smaller number of weapons each year, are being deployed to better assess the current state of the stockpile. Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program tools will continue to be developed and applied to support these activities, as well as the annual assessment process. 31 U.S. Department of Energy Stockpile Stewardship The United States stopped underground nuclear testing in 1992, ending the practice used as the ultimate demonstration of the safety, security, and effectiveness of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The replacement approach for warhead certification and assessment was called science-based stockpile stewardship. Its premise was that a foundation of comprehensive understanding of the science, technology, and engineering phenomena in these most complex of weapons would serve to assure the nuclear deterrent for the enduring future. This new approach would require the development of a new generation of high- performance computer software and hardware well beyond those available, and a suite of experimental capabilities to investigate the extreme states of matter encountered in nuclear weapon operation, previously only accessible in underground tests and in astrophysical objects such as the cores of giant planets and supernovae. Today, stockpile stewardship has demonstrated this goal is achievable. The numerical simulations are now becoming predictive, incorporating more detailed scientific understanding of critical physical phenomena. These simulations use sophisticated models and algorithms that are validated through extensive analysis of data from surveillance, the underground nuclear testing archive, and new experiments. Unique facilities provide higher fidelity measurements of fundamental materials properties and nuclear reactions while exercising the nuclear security enterprise skills needed to maintain and manage the stockpile. In the future, a new generation. of. nuclear. weapons designers skilled. on. modern tools and techniques will have been trained and mentored by experienced designers to ensure. the. knowledge gained over six decades of. nuclear testing. is incorporated. into this sustainable stockpile stewardship mission. Continued. improvement in the science, technology, and engineering understanding and predictive capabilities has enabled a deeper understanding of nuclear weapons performance. than was previously. possible. and provides. assurance. the stockpile can remain safe, secure, and effective without new underground nuclear testing. The Department must maintain its unique capabilities in nuclear weapons design, science, and production. in addition, we must maintain other science. technology. and engineering capabilities needed to support the nuclear weapons program. The reduction of nuclear weapon stockpiles does not diminish the need For these capabilities. Rather, their importance may increase as the nuclcar?testirg;r era recedes, and we pursue further stockpile reductions. . Sustaining this expertise will require signi?cant emphasis on recruitng and trainng a new generation of weapon scientists and engineers, and ensuring the knowledge and experience gained over (1U years of actual weapon development and testing is passed to this new generation. Experimental and computational capabilities and facilities must he developed and applied to enhance knowledge anuclear weapons performance and 1ti cycles, and to. train and hone the next generation weapons t-vorklorce and specialists. Revitalizing this science. technology, and engineering workforce is an essential component ofa successful Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program. 32 STRATEGIC. PLAN The production, surveillance, and dismantlement ol-stocltpile weapons requires specialized infrastructure capable ofhandling hazardous and nuclear materials. The safety, security, and environmental demands anuclear security require modernization of Cold Wilt?era Facilities. and in some cases, transformed capabilities. in particular, Facilities For uranium and plutonium producnon and handling are now more than 50 years old and must be replaced to tneet modern safety, security, and environmental standards. The US. commitment to reduce the size of the stockpile is expressed in the Norther stare. Review and treaty objectives. Meeting this commitment requires an eFFeetive weapon dismantlement program that completes this important work in a timely manner with appropriate attention to safety and concerns. Dismantling excess weapons is important. tangible evidence of U5. commitment to move toward a world Free of nuclear weapons. The Department will accelerate and broaden its longstanding nonproliferation efforts and will support arms control objectives to achieve the President's nuclear security agenda goals, embodied in the National Seem-fir Simmer] and i?M-Trro?eer Pasture Review. increasing demands for clean. carbon?free energy are accelerating the deployment oiinucleat power plants worldwide, which could spur pursuit of indigenous nuclear fuel enrichment and reprocessing capabilities by other countries. Increased numbers of: Fuel cycle Facilities, unsecured nuclear materials. and illicit nuclear traf?cking combine to make the prevention olw nuclear terrorism and proliferation an urgent priority. Ei'Fective and credible international nuclear safeguards and export controls are important tools to counter proliferation threats. international agreements currently under consideration will place signi?cant demands on monitoring and veri?cation to provide the necessary con?dence that all parties are complying with their treaty obligations. The Department will build on its long history oFengagement with international partners to promote transparent weapons oF mass destruction reductions and eFFeetive veri?cation through the development of technical capabilities and policy options. The Presidenth objective to combat nuclear proliferation presents numerous challenges. it will require an active nuclear and radiological material security Serm'r'ry 2010. [jib ce oi?the President. Available at viewer;If national security 33 U.S. Department of Energy dialogue and cooperation with key domestic and international partners, where the Department will take a leading role. Enhanced tools for the detection of nuclear material movement and production will be needed to help redttce proliferation risks. Russian and U5. commitments to dispose weaponagrade plutonium to ensure it cannot be used again For nuclear weapons requires a safe, secttre, transparent, and effective disposal process. Targeted Outcomes: The National Nuclear Security Administration will support the President?s goal of securing vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide; target is. end of 20 13 (High Priority Pet-Formanee Goal]. 0 Complete, by the end ot?2013, demonstrations anet-tt?generation technologies and methods to dctecr movement oFspecial nuclear material For new treaty monitoring tools to ensure the obligations ol?l?oreign governments are being met. international treaty regimes. are an important component of reducing nuclear danger, with the ultimate aim or? zero nuclear weapons worldwide. The success of the New START Treaty, the Comprehensive Nuclear?Test Ban Treaty, the Treaty on the Non? I?rolileration of Nuclear \Xt'eapons, and the liissile Material depend on technology to detect noncompliance and to hold international partners accountable. The Departments expertise and long experience with nuclear technologies is essential. to providing the reliable and robust monitoring and veri?cation systems required. The Department?because oF its extensive science and technology capabilities and nuclear expertise?has long ptOvidcd support to national security missions in defense, hotneland security, and intelligence. we will provide the scientific and technical knowledge to enable national security agencies to understand and counter dangers arising from foreign nuclear weapons programs, the spread of nuclear capabilities. to additional countries, and the. potential exploitation of nuclear materials by terrorists. As part or this eF?rort, we will provide nuclear and radiological emergency response capabilities, assess foreign nuclear weapons development programs, analyze the life cycle ol?lissile materials, develop nuclear propulsion systems for the Navy. and address an array of technologies to enhance transportation security. The Department will continue to work with its federal, state, and local partners. to ensure these important missions are continuously. supported and that the. nation can understand and eFicctively address strategic threats worldwide. 34 STRATEGIC PLAN The Department of Energy. Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and the Director oFNational Intelligence Ttvill partner in an forum to ensure the science, technology, and engineering capabilities of the Departmentis national laboratories are developed and sustained to meet the strategic. needs and priorities oi? the broader national security community. This then enables other agencies to use the expertise and capabilities resident in the Department?s laboratories via \Vork For Others, Memoranda of Understanding, or other mechanisms. The unique knowledge gained in nuclear weapons design developed to support the US. stockpile plays a critical role in the nation?s ability to understand strategic threats worldwide. The Department must support the development of capabilities and expertise to apply this knowledge broadly to the intelligence community and national security policymakers for the analysis oi?l?oreign weapons programs, and to assess the potential of emerging nuclear threats. Nonproliferation efiorts play a key role in discouraging additional countries from acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities and stopping terrorist groups from acquiring nuclear weapons or the materials to build them. However, the need to be prepared to respond to the threat of nuclear terrorism remains, including maintaining emergency response capabilities that draw heavily upon the Department?s expertise in nuclear weapons design and engineering. in the event of discovery or use nuclear or radiological device or materials. advanced capabilities for nuclear forensics will be required to identify the source of the nuclear material. The Department provides the design, development and operational support required to provide militarily effective nuclear propulsion plants and ensure their safe. reliable. and long-lived operation. The. Department is responsible for the reactor plant design and development for the lUhioaclass ballistic missile submarine replacement, which will include new technology to enable lower?cost construction while enhancing plant safety and survivability and reducing life cycle costs. it will also retire] its land?based reacror plant prototype in support oiiessential research and development efforts, and work toward the recapitalization of the program?s 50ryearr old used nuclear fuel infrastructure to ensure the ?exibility needed to adjust to future mission demands. 35 U.S.. Department of Energy Targeted Outcomes: - Provide the United States Navy with an reactor plant by 2015 For next? generation aircraft carrier that increases core energy, provides nearly three times the electric plant generating capability, and requires half the number oli reactor department sailors as compared to today?s aircraft carriers. Provide the United States Nat-?y by 2026 with a reactor plant that will extend core lifetime for. the nextageneration. ballistic missile submarine. \Worldwide deployment of civilian nuclear power is important to. simultaneously satisfy both the increasing demand For energy and the need to limit greenhouse gas emissions. However, we must also carefully consider the impacts of deployment. President Obama has called for the development of a new framework for international nuclear energy cooperation to redttce. incentives for countries. to. pursue their own Fuel?cycle Facilities. This new Framework may include a variety of Features, such as international fuel banks, multilateral Fuel service assurances, storage Facilities. and repositories For used Fuel. The Department will help establish this Framework, taking into account the ?ndings and once they are issued by the Blue Ribbon Commission on Americas Nuclear liuture. in doing so, we re=aflirm the Departments commitment to the responsible. disposition of used nuclear fuel. and high?level waste. Targeted Outcome: Use multilateral Forums to promote nuclear incl leasing. Safety and security concerns surrounding civilian nuclear power must be successfully addressed in the United States and globally. By taking a leading position in helping to craft the international nuclear technology ?rules?oF?tl'te?road" and providing a sound technology base For their implementation and enForeement, the Department can facilitate a saiie and etwironmentally acceptable source olienergy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and maintaining public con?dence. The Department will also. conduct research. and developn'tent in search of fttelacycle technologies. that. improve resource utilization while reducing the risk onroltiration. 36 STRATEGIC PLAN The Department has the monumental tasl-r ofeleaning up the environmental legacy from live decades ofnuclear weapons development and government?sponsored nuclear energy research. have been successfully mitigating the technically challenging rislcs and have made substantial progress in nearly every area ofnuclear waste cleanup, including stabilizing and consolidating special nuclear material and safely storing tons ofused nuclear fuel. Wire have continued to build momentum in disposing ofsolid radioaetive wastes, remediating contaminated soil and water, and deactivating and decommissioning radioactively contaminated facilities, with each succeeding year building on the last. Our strategy is to work aggressively to reduce the footprint of our contaminated sites while bringing to bear the Departmentjs formidable research and development assets to develop and deploy transformational technologies that will both accelerate and lower the cost ofdispositioning our highest cutie materials that present high. risk to public health and the environment. Disposition of this material remains our biggest challenge, as there are few precedents and fewer existing technologies and processes available to solve them. for these unique challenges, advancing our technology efforts is essential to ?nding new and better solutions. 1When the Environmental Management Program was established in 1989, there were 1 if] sites requiring cleanup in 35 states (including the Commonwealth of li'uerto Rico}, resulting in a legacy footprint of3125 square miles. Today, there are l8 sites requiring cleanup in it} states, resulting in a footprint square miles. lCJur strategy is to bttild on this success and complete cleanup activities that reduce the legacy footprint while maximizing the reduction of environmental, safety, and health risks in a safe, secure, compliant, and cost?eliective manner. ili'ansuranic waste and low-level waste disposal, soil and groundwater remediation, and deactivation and decommissioning?cleanup activities for which we have demonstrated high performance using proven technologies within a well~de?ned regulatory framework?will enable the near?term site completions and reduce our legacy Footprint Further. Ultimately, completion of such cleanup activities reduces the surveillance and maintenance costs associated with managing large tracks ofland, while having the pOtential to furthering other priorities of the Department. Targeted Outcome: Reduce Cold War legacy waste site footprint by 40% (to 540 square miles) by 2011 (High Priority Performance Coal) and by 90% (approximately 90 square miles) by 2015. 3? U.S. Department of Energy Large, one-o?a-kind construction projects, designed to treat highly radioactive waste from decades til?legacy operations1 are key assets needed to Tull-ill the cleanttp mission. With the projected cost oilat'ojects more than $14 billion (total cost For the Hanford Site, Savannah River Site, and ldaho treatment plants}, the successful completion oi? Environmental Management construction projects within the current baseline costs and schedules is crucial. \We have embarked on an effort to improve safety and quality performance toward a goal ofiaeto accidents and defects, [0 increase accountability ?ll? contract ?'l?I?l?gL?l?l?lL?l?lt and performance through application of hest practices. For a subset oi?our integrated soil and groundwater remediation activities1 current processes and treatments are not viable. These more complex remediation activities offer opportunities for using enhanced technology as. well. as streamlining treatments._ The use ofadvanced modeling and simulation tools offers solutions that would not be otherwise possible. As early as next year. we will recognize the rewards of these new modeling and simulation tools. Targeted Outcomes: Develop and apply advanced modeling and simulation tools in 2011 to accelerate progress on Environmental Management technical challenges. Develop novel methods for addressing high?level waste that can accelerate )ro Jress ant rec ttce costs 0 is tic ecat a no tramll} 7012 gd For the ?rst demonstration. Radioactive liquid tank waste is our most signilicant environmental, salety, and health threat. The Department and its predecessor agencies generated radioactive liquid waste as a byproduct of the production of nuclear weapons. The 239 underground tanks hold ahout 88 million gallons ofltighly radioactive waste From the legacy of: the Cold Will: It is also the largest cost element in the cleanup program. Through the use oF the Environmental Management Engineering and 'l'echnology Roadmap, we will leverage our national laboratories capabilities to provide technical solutions where none exist, improved solutions that enhance safety and operating ef?ciency1 or technical alternatives that reduce cost1 schedule1 or performance risks. These technologies involve advanced concepts in waste disposal, modular tank waste treatment. and next?generation melters for waste vitri?cation. Deployment of new technologies will reduce the. life. cycle and accelerate completion. 38 STRATEGIC. PLAN Technical or economic limitations, or worker health and safety considerations, prevent ?raeilitics and Cold Wxar sites From being remediaretl For unrestricted use. Longrterm surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance at some sites will be required for hundreds or even thousands oiiyears. To ensure the long-term protection of human health and the environment, we will take corrective action to modiFy engineered disposal cells, treat contaminated groundwater, and sustain institutional controls. The Department?s actions will be focusecl on maintaining compliance as a priority, and lowering risk and the c05t of maintenance activities where possible. The Department will also work with local communities and regulators to optimize the use oiilantl and related assets, 39 U.S. Department of Energy Goal: Establish an operational and adaptable framework that combines the best wisdom of all Department stakeholders to maximize mission success. This Strategic Plan establishes our vision for transformational clean energy, science, and security solutions that are signi?cant, timely, and cost efliective. Success in this enterprise will require a sustained commitment to management excellence from headquarters to every site of?ce, service center, laboratory and facility based on Secretary Chu?s guiding management principles listed on page v. ?00" translate ottr management principles into action by focusing on operational and technical excellence. Achievement of our goals will require each ofus to clearly understand our own and one roles and responsibilities. ?We must develop the most highly qualified, capable, and flexible letieral workforce. we will improve the rigor ofottr research and development management so that we support only those activities that have the greatest potential and likelihood for impact; malce decisions fully informed by rigorous peer review; and effectively disseminate the results of the activities we support. \er will work relentlessly to improve project management and exercise our regulatory authorities in a manner that is strategic and efficient. Additionally, our management principles call us to implement a performance?based culture that clearly linlcs worlc to agency goals, holds employees accountable for meeting ottr mission, and appropriately rewards employees for their efforts. It will require carefttl use of public resources. and faithful compliance with the highest ethical and legal standards. This will require increased transparency of?nancial and operational data systems, vigilant protccrion of safety and security, and effective information technology and cyberrsecurity systems. This is our management excellence agenda. Following a by the National Academy of Public Administration, we are driving our management excellence agenda under the auspices of an Operations Management Council consisting of the leadership of the mission and mission? support organizations that are chaired by the Associate Deputy Secretary. The $35.2 billion entrusted to the Department through the ARRA in F?t? 2009 showed that we can reinvent our business processes. We have learned much. about ottr business practices what we are capable of, where we were, and where we want to be. W?e proved that we can excel only through teamwork and continuous improvement. Based in part upon our ARRA experience, we have identi?ed a number ofopportunities for improvement and have begun processes to realize them in the ?illowing areas. 40 STRATEGIC PLAN The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: A Benchmark for Departmental. Operations The Recovery Act?s urgency required an exceptional level of collaboration across Departmental programs and functions. Novel organizational efforts allowed us to succeed in both speed and quality. ramping up activities while minimizing risk to taxpayers. Operations and processes: Task?oriented teams staffed up from across multiple programs and adopted process reforms to enhance collaboration across programs and functions, created shared accountability, provided a forum to break down barriers to implementation. and facilitated quality decision making. Management tools:_. A series of standardized. reports and. management tools. provided transparent, consistent management data across program offices to measure progress and identify bottlenecks in workflow. Communications: A set of customer-facing reforms helped make the Department easier to work with and more transparent to the public. Using management data to support communications helped structure an integrated calendar and share the results of our work. We will continue to ensure we are getting the most out funding. Monitoring, verification, and evaluation of project accomplishments will continue over the coming years. The Department is unique in the extent to which we use Federalljl.r Funded Research and Development Centers to support our national security mission, push the bounds of science, and accelerate technological innovation. The rationale for the model was to allow each party to perform duties for which it is uniquely suited: the government eStablishes mission areas and provides the facilities while the private sector and university laboratories implement the missions, using best business practices and bringing the best science and technology to bear on the mission. Over time, the original model has evolved with expanding multiprogram missions, increasing ?work for others,H and new partnerships with universities and the private sector. These changes make it essential that federal, laboratory, and contractor roles and responsibilities be clearly' articulated. Clarit}t is also required within the Department?among programs, funcuons, and site administration activities?so that contractor management delivers an effective and efficient partnership of the national laboratory as an institution with its facilityr users, research collaborators, and the Department. we will reaf?rm and, where necessary, clari?v the roles and responsibilities of each part},r in the contracting management chain ever}r 2 to 4 years to ensure we hold a shared view of the roles each party should play to maximize mission impacr, productivity, and speed while reducing management risk, cost, and complexity. 41 U.S. Department of Energy Targeted Outcomes: - Align Functional and programmatic reporting and, where necessary, create organizational positions to Focus and accelerate decision?making and accountability by 2011. Develop governance principles relevant to balancing tnission and risk, collaboration, transparency, and dispute resolution by 2'31 1. we have identi?ed the root causes that make our hiring process today cumbersome, and complicated. These impediments adversely impact our ability to attract. and hire the best possible candidates. we will streamline our recruitment and. hiring processes through the implementation of our agency hiring reform action plan in accordance with the President?s hiring reform initiatives for General Schedule, Senior Executive Service, and equivalent positions. we will be more aggressive in recruiting top quality program managers. wife will enrich the diversity of the Department workForce?including our technical staff?to make it more inclusive of women, minorities, veterans, and. persons. with disabilities. we. have identified barriers to diversity and are implementing strategies to overcome them. \We will align, plan, and manage organizational learning and development activities with Departmental, technical, managerial, and leadership workforce needs 3 to 5 years in the future using competency?based needs assessments, training plans, and workforce plans. Ware will mentor, develop, and Foster the professional growth and advancement through individual development planning For all individuals in the Department i'edcral workforce to ensure our employees have ful?lling and producrive. careers with the. Department. 'lo. broaden the technical skills and understanding oi?our stafi?, we will institute a rotation program that aiiords opportunities for the highest-performing midcareer staff to be on assignment outside their home organization for a period of at least 6 months. This will enable them to develop a broader knowledge of multiple Department assets, capabilities, and technologies, and the opportunities and constraints in pursuing our various missions. \We will empower and expect our program managers to make decisions. based on a deep understanding of the. latest scientific and technology developments. Targeted Outcomes: Measure and reduce our average timertorhire for General Schedule positions and equivalent positions by every human resources of?ce (from initiation date to entry on duty date] from 174 calendar days to an Silhday average that includes a 50?day target to job offer by the end of FY 2012. ?chieve the highest possible quality o?eadership, talent management. performance culture, and satisfaction of the workforce, as measured on the public website HRPer-iiormanchEov. 42 STRATEGIC PLAN - improve and integrate the planning and implementation of individual learning and strategic organizational workforce development through annual targeted increases in the use of individual development plans and annual training plans. The Department spends a higher percentage of its funds on research and development than any of the other 13 Cabinet?level agencies. It is therefore essential that we examine and optimize our practices so that our research programs rely upon analytically grounded planning, seek hroad input from stakeholders in establishing clear priorities, and make decisions hased upon rigorous peer review. Good research and development management procedures throughout the Department will enhance stakeholder con?dence and justify the stable funding environments that are a prerequisite for successful longaterm Support. Activities with the Greatest Potential. liocusing programs on eliminating the most significant problems and barriers allows the most rapid progress toward our goals. Programs that have constantly churning priorities. pursue quick wins, or dilute resources in the face of too many options sap the effectiveness of our efforts. Programs that ramp up and down before the hard work cart he conducted to test an idea, develop an essential tool, or prove a technology cannot eflectively deliver results. \Ve must be clear-eyed and focused in assessing those fields in which we want to be clear leaders, those in which parity is suf?cient, and those in which we are content to he informed observers. Wire are unequivocal in our commitment to supporting world?leading programs in materials science and engineering and in simulation. Both these areas are critical to progress in our energy, security, and science missions. All ofour programs will use broadly constituted expert advisory committees to identify the most significant barriers to progress and inform priorities with 5-year horizons. in developing program priorities. future opportunities must compete on the quality of their ideas, the rigor of their technical approach, and the value of their knowledge return. Because of their importance in prioritization, technology assessments must be made within a systems context under realistic assumptions of scale, technology headroom, and economics. Peer Review and Research Management. W?e will make program decisions through empowered program managers informed by qualified peer review of proposals. ?Committees ofVisitors" will be employed throughout the Department to periodically assess and improve the quality and integrity of program operations and program?level technical and managerial matters in proposal decisions. ?e will improve our processes for recruiting and selecting highly quali?ed reviewers and panelists to create a pool ofhighly qualified reviewers; reviewers and panelists will reflect the diversity of our natiotfs technical talent. Disseminate our Results, Our success should be measured not when a project is completed or an experiment concluded, but when scientific and technical information is disseminated. Beyond broad availability of technical reports, 43 U.S.. Department of Energy e?prints and multimedia, and publication in peer?reviewed journals, open access to experimental data and analysis codes is increasingly important in policy?relevant research areas. The Department will establish guidelines for use with both grants and contracts to appropriate access to. and retention o? scienti?c data and analysis methods. in more applied areas, knowledge of what did not work can he of equal value with positive results, for that can prevent the misapplication of signi?cant private resources. The Department will therefore encourage the documentation attd archiving ol?negative results from all its performers using the most advanced informatics tools. Evaluate our Programs. Department program and support ollices have robust expertise in various forms of program evaluations. These include peer and merit reviews, advisory committee reviews. National Academies of? Science studies. and US. Government Accountability Of?ce (GAO) 2' Of?ce lGeneral audits. 1When possible, projecr reporting and veri?cation activities are augmented with detailed process and impact evaluations. Evaluations are conducted by independent, third~party professional evaluators, and their work is also reviewed by experts. The Department will collect an annual inventory of current and proposed evaluations, and will ttndertake a process to identify and prioritize evaluations to ?tnd them based on needs and potential impact. Tracking and archiving systems will ensure all evaluations conducted are properly documented and available For lessons learned and auditing purposes. The Department will continue to play a leadership role in energy security, nuclear security, scienti?c discovery, and environmental stewardship. we will build, modernize, and maintain the facilities and infrastructure that are essential to these efforts. In doing so, the Department maintains a large cadre of top?notch contract and project management professionals to deliver cost?effective contracts and success?ll projects. To improve contract and project management, the Department will structure ottr contracts to align contractor incentives with taxpayer interests; provide clear lines oF accountability attd authority; and manage projects so they are completed within the original scope. and cost performance baseline and are fully capable of meeting the mission. \We will continue to improve management and oversight, strengthen cost estimating, and assure accountability. Wife will work to achieve the removal of all our programs From the GAO High Risk list by 3. As demonstrated through the National Nuclear Security Administration?s recent Supply Chain Management initiative, we will apply pricing and process ef?ciencies through Department?wide strategic sourcing to save hundreds oF millions oFdollars. lot the longer term, applying those principles will make the contractor community?s acquisition process strategically driven and integrated. 44 STRATEGIC PLAN \ch will also work to strengthen our com mirment to openness and diversity among our performers. we will strengthen partnerships with minority institutions, promulgating policy to level the playing field for small businesses to win contracts. and integrating environmental justice principles into our program missions. Targeted Outcomes: Complete at least 90% of-our capital asset. projects (achieving Critical Decision 4 [(31:14] project completion within a Seyear rolling timeline} at original scope and within 1 10% of the cost baseline by 2012. Develop independent cost estimates For 100%: of major systems projects prior to Critical Decision 2 The Department owns a real property portfolio with a value in excess of approximately $86 billion. A well?managed real property portfolio is essential to mission accomplishment. will ensure the real property portFolio is managed el?feetively and sustainably to meet current and future needs by the most economical means available. we will use a suite of appropriate performance measures to assess outcomes against expectations and industryastandard benchmarks. Targeted Outcomes: incorporate cool roof technology for 100% of new or replacement. roofs on Department real property. unless ecoi?iomically infeasible. Achieve a level of 15% by 2015 of enduring buildings compliant with the High Performance Sustainable Buildings Guiding Principles contained in Executive Order 13423.' When this Administration took of?ce. the Department was at risk onudicial sanctions For violating an appliance regulation consent decree schedule. W?c made emergency reforms to the regulatory process for appliance Standards and, as a result, have been able to comply with all consent decree deadlines. The Department, however, continues to miss other statutory deadlines that are not subject to the consent decree. Reform ofour internal regulatory development procedures is necessary. ?e must have a regulatory process that is ef?cient and provides senior policy?makers with. an opportunity to participate in the process and one that is driven by policy priorities instead of missed deadlines. Accordingly. the Department will implement procedural changes to its regulatory process. including the development ofa prioritized regulatory agenda. y. ic?a?trerittftoem'rrg Harrow! Errisirarzmerimt, Energy. and Iimoparirrtiaa a: Acquisition. 2097'. . Executive. Order. 13423, Of?ce otthe President. Available at 45 U.S.. Department of Energy 'l'htough the Recovery Aet, we have demonstrated we can increase transparency of operations and performance to provide reliable and timely information for internal decision makers, as well as edttcate external stakeholders. Enhanced transparency that originated with the Recovery Act will also increase insight into core processes to identi?r opportunities to streamline operations and better manage performance and costs. we will continue to advance our data collection cyber security policies, and business analytic tools to improve planning, evaluation, and reporting. \We will develop an information distribution strategy that enables easy access for both internal and external stakeholders. \We will develop a culture of competent, ethical, and motivated performers who produce results. The Framework of our performance?based culture will consist of Four principles: Clear performance expectations Clear accountability Responsible empowerment Timely and responsible performance, assessment. This Framework will be supported by performance management systems and processes that link work to mission goals. Our communications strategy will include steps to clarify performance expectations and accountability, as well as describe supportive behaviors addressing;r ethical conduct and best practices For identi?-?ing and rewardng meaningful distinctions between levels of perlormance. 'l?argeted Outcome: 0 improve and continue to refine Department performance management systems and processes by 2012 so that they clearly link work to mission goals, expected outcomes, and accomplishment measures. Ensure that meaningful distinctions between levels of performance are identi?ed and rewarded appropriately we are committed to making? the Department more open and more accessible to the American people. W?e have signi?cantly expanded the amount of information available online about our programs, our Funding awards, and our progress, as well as valuable data about energy production and consumption and trends within the energy industry. For example, we provide datasets on our government website on the 2010 gulfoil spill, including oil and gas How and recovery measurements, air 46 STRATEGIC PLAN and. water sample data, and. other data oF interest to scientists, recovery workers, and citizens. \We use internet social media tools to engage the public in the national energy conversation. Our Open Government initiatives are driven by the principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration. Our Department-wide Financial Transparency initiative (Eli) aims to provide the same level of ?nancial and management information transparency for our base programs and projects as is currently available For AREA projects. The long? term goal of the is to broadly implement the ability to quickly and seamlessly access inForination, linking our Strategic Plan, budget, appropriations and program eaecurion data. This capability will also help decrease the number of data requests, while giving managers and senior executives the ability to ef?ciently select and review timely. accurate and reliable management information. Additionally, using this enhanced reporting capability will also help support the transformation orcour acquisition processes From tactical and reactive to strategically driven and. integrated. Targeted Outcomes: Create and deploy a quarterly reporting capability by 201 i For timely and reliable tirnctional institutional cost inFormation. from. our national laboratories. Design. and deploy a Department?wide advanced management information environment by 20] I, enabled through state?oli?the?art reporting and display tools, to provide timely and accurate information supporting in?depth program and project performance analysis and review. W?hile maintaining the highest standards olisalie and secure operations at Departmental facilities and recognizing line management?s signi?cant responsibility for safety and security, we will transform the Departl?nent?s framework of requirements and oversight to enhance productivity and achieve our vital mission goals. We will. conduct the following: increase coordination oi?enForcement actions with line management Work with the Field Management Council. to understand where reform in its oversight and enforcement practices is needed Maintain rigorous and in Formed oversight of" high hazard operations or high? value security assets - Focus independent oversight operations and lower?value security assets on sites where sire performance requires increased attention Continue a disciplined and systematic review ot?the Departments safety and security regulatory model, including all Of?ce of Health, Safety, and Security directives. 4r U.S.. Department of. Energy Information Technology and cyber security are enablers of the. Departments goals and must reflect the missions and risks of the Department. This means building systems and infrastructure that are cost effective and support ef?cient operations, and ensuring the cutting edge application or" technology and creative solutions in a framework that provides flexibility. Cyber security must be managed in the broader context of risk, with tailored protections and a continually evolving I in 413* and responsive. program. that. adjusts. to changing threats. vulnerabilities. and needs. ?00" will implement a Departn?ientewide approach to risk management for unclassi?ed and classi?ed lT environments. Targeted Outcome: Implement a plan by 2012 for incident reporting and response in the Department. The Government Performance and Results? Aer nf?ii?' mandates that ?mthe strategic plan shall cover a period of not less than Four years Following the ?scal year in which the plan is submitted. As needed the head ol?the agency may tnake adjustments to the strategic plan to re?ect changes in the environment to which the. agency is operating?. Going forward, the. major programs. will develop implementation plans based upon this document in consultation with the Under Secretary for Science as the Department?s Chief Research Of?cer} The Department will hirmally review its Strategic Plan every 4 years, and the Of?ce of the Under Secretary For Science will coordinate that eFfort with broad consultation of leadership and senior career stail: from Department Headquarters and the field. An annual review oiiprogress against the plan will occur at the. beginning of.- the budget formulation process. Performance and Rennie rifaderm'zrirfen fin: 0. 2010. Available at idfsf [39281 ?rbl. Zb'errt'an 30:96 after? Energy Policy Ar: afi'??j {Public Law 109?58] states that the Under Secretary For Science will "advise the Secretary with respect to long-term planning, coordination. and develop tnent tit-a strategic framework for Department research and development activities." Available at 48 This report was prepared as an account ofwork sponsored by an agency of the United States government, Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of'their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of?any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any speci?c commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY This report is available at: enerquqov/madfa/DOE StrategicPandf DOEJCF-OUBT ?5 Document Number 2 .3 n. GD . HiLix?n-NLp 54.13 . fun?.2 . U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY L. I al Reort Agency Fi nanc1 iscal . I Foreword he Reports Consolidation Act of 2060 authorizes Federal agencies, with the Office of'Management and Budget's concurrence, to consolidate various reports in order to provide performance, financial and. related. information. ina. more meaningful. and. useful. format. The Department of Energy [Department or has. chosen an alternative reporting to the consolidated Performance and Accountability Report and instead, produces an Agency Financial Report, an Annual Performance Report and a Summary ofPerformance and Financial information, pursuant to the OMB Circular This reporting approach. simplifies and streamlines. the. performance presentations while utilizing the Internet for providing and leveraging additional. performance. information. The Department?s fiscal year 2011 reporting includes. the following three components and will be available at the website below, as each component is completed: Agency. Financial Report - The AFR is organized by the following three major sections. Herzl Agency Flltulicinl Report . 1 the Department. HE -W c- .. . statutory reporting. GENERGY Annual Performance Report [will be available HEW February 2&12] The APR will ?mm? be produced in conjunction with the. Congressional Budget lustifications and will provide the. detailed performance information and descriptions ofresults by each performance. measure. I Management?s Discussion and Analysis section provides executive-level information on the Department?s history, mission, organization, Secretarial priorities, analysis offinancial statements, systems, controls. and legal compliance and other. management priorities facing Financial Results section provides a Message from the Chief Financial Officer, the Department's consolidated and combined. financialstatements and the.Auditors* Report. Other. Accompanying Information section. provides the Inspector General?s. Statement of Management Challenges, Improper Payments Information Act Reporting details and other Summary of Performance Information [will be available Hm February2012].This.document Summary of will highlight the most important . performance and. financial. information from the APR and AFR in the. brief, executive. format. inure-1. ENERGY The above three reports. meet the following legislated reporting requirements: Improper Payments Information Act as amended by the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010, requires reporting on agency efforts. to identify and. reduce erroneous payments. Accountability Report [Pl-tit}. Government-wide requirements. Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 requires the consolidated reporting ofperformance, financial and related information in a Performance and Federal. Financial Management Improvement requires an assessment oftbe agency's financial systems. for adherence. to. Government Management Reform Act of 1994 requires agency audited financial statements. Federal. Managers'. Financial integrity Act of ?l 982. requiresa report on the status ol'internal controls and. the agency 's most serious problems. Inspector. General. Act of 1978 {Amended} requires information on management actions in. response to audits. All three reports will be available at Table of Contents Message. from the. Secretary Management?s. Discussion. and Analysis. Agency. Highlights. Strategic. Plan. and. Program moi-1H Goal 1. Transform. Our. Energy. Systems. Goal 2. The. Science. and. Engineering 1 1. Goal 3. Secure. Our. 12. Goal 4-. Management and Operational 15. Management?s. Analysis, Assurances. and Priorities. Analysis. of. Financial. Statements. 17. Analysis. of Systems, Controls and Legal 23 Management Assurances 23 Federal. Managers?. Financial. Integrity. Act .. 23. OMB. Circular Appendix A. .. 23 Federal. Financial. Management Improvement Act. .. 23 American Recovery. and. Reinvestment Act. Management Priorities. Financial Results. Message. from the Chief Financial. Officer .. 35 Consolidated and Combined Financial Statements .. 36. Introduction to. Principal Statements .. 36. Principal Statements. .. 37 Notes to. the Consolidatedand Combined. Financial Statements. .. 42 Consolidating Schedules. .. 36 Required. Supplementary Stewardship Information. .. 96 Required. Supplementary. Information 1. Auditors?. Report. "1114. Memorandum fromthe Inspector General "104 lndependent Auditors?. Report ?106 Other Accompanying Information 115 Inspector General?s. Management Challenges ..1 16. Summary. of Financial Statement Audit and Management Assurances ..1 18. Financial Management Systems Plan ..119 Improper Payments Information and Reporting "120' Other Statutory Reporting Management's. Response to Audit Reports ..123 Glossary. ofAcronyms. ..124. Internet Refere nces Linksr_r Message from the Secretary I am pleased to present the US. Department of Energy?s (DOE) Fiscal Year i Agency Financiai Report. This report provides key financial, and performance information that demonstrates. our accountability to ensure America?s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. This report and our Fiscal Year 201 I Performance Report, available in February 2012, are produced as an alternative to the Performance and Accountability Report. These reports are. available at Energygov. The Department of Energy has made remarkable progress during these economically challenging times by laying the foundation for. a new clean energy future, advancing groundbreaking. science, and reducing the nuclear dangers facing our citizens. . In the process, we have begun to change the way the Department does business so we accomplish our work more efficiently and more effectively. The. Department of Energy Strategic Plan, released in May 2011, reflects this new focus through four strategic goal areas: transform our energy systems through catalyzing the timely, material, and efficient transformation of the nation?s energy system and securing US. leadership in clean energy. technologies; promote the science and engineering enterprise by maintaining a vibrant U.S. effort in science and engineering as a cornerstone of our economic prosperity, with clear leadership in strategic areas; secure our nation. by. enhancing nuclear security through defense, nonproliferation, and environmental efforts; and achieve. management and. operational excellence by establishing an operational and adaptable framework that combines the best wisdom of all Department stakeholders to maximize mission success. The. investments DOE has made have laid the foundation for a new clean energy economy creating jobs, reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources, and saving money for American families and businesses, Investments in advanced. vehicle. manufacturing, renewable energy generation, the weatherization of low-income homes, smart meter deployment, and carbon capture and sequestration have benefited communities across the country, at the same time that they have increased the nation?s economic competitiveness. The Department continues to. expand the frontiers of science to spur innovation and position the United States to lead in the global clean energy economy. The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) has established itself as a ground-breaking research agency to support potentially transformative research. DOE has also launched three Energy Innovation Hubs and dozens of Energy Frontier Research Centers to accelerate cutting-edge From a car battery with a 500 mile range to producing gasoline from sunlight, we have unleashed bold new research efforts that if successful could fundamentally change the way we use and produce energy. The Department of Energy has strengthened nuclear safety and security at home and abroad, cleaning up nuclear sites in the United States and securing vulnerable nuclear material around the world. The Department also played a central role in the historic Nuclear Security Summit, which brought together 47 world leaders to agree on effective national and international measures to secure nuclear material. DOE contributed to making the world a safer place by helping negotiate the New START Treaty the most significant arms control agreement in nearly two decades. As we continue our work, the Department will rely on the creativity, talent, and dedication of its employees and of the Department?s contractor work force to discover and deliver solutions to our national challenges. Together, we can position the United States to win the global clean energy technology race creating new jobs and industries and a stronger economic future. The independent public accounting firm KPMG LLP conducted an audit of the Department?s. fiscal year 20] 1 financial statements contained in this report. Based on the results of that audit, the Department received an unqualified audit opinion. Based on our internal evaluations, I can provide reasonable assurance that the financial and performance information contained in this report is complete and reliable and accurately describes the results achieved by the Department. As Secretary, I assure you that Department of Energy employees take their work seriously, and I commend them for their contributions. 10 Steven Chu November 14, 20] I Management?s Discussion. and Analysis. Agency Highlights MISSION To ensure America ?s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES 1.. Our mission is vital and urgent. 2. Science and technology lie at the heart of our mission. 3. We will treat our people as our greatest asset. 4. We will pursue our mission in a manner that is safe, secure, legally and ethically sound, and fiscally responsible. 5. We will manage risk in fulfilling our mission. 6. We will apply validated standards and rigorous peer review. 7. We will succeed only through teamwork and continuous improvement. STRATEGIC STRUCTURE Goal 3: Secure Our Nation Goal 1: Transform Our Energy Systems I Support the U.S. nuclear stockpile and future military I Deploy the technologies we have I Discover the new solutions we need I Lead the national conversation on energy Goal 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise I Extend our knowledge ofthe natural world needs I Reduce global nuclear dangers Apply our capabilities for other critical national security missions I Support responsible civilian nuclear power development and fuel cycle management I Complete environmental remediation ofour legacy and active sites I Deliver new technologies to advance our mission I Sustain a world-leading technical workforce Goal. 4: Management and Operational Excellence I Achieve operational and. technical excellence I Implement a performance-based culture U.S. Department of Energy ligency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 1 AGENCY HIGHLIGHTS History he Department has one of the richest and most diverse histories in the Federal Government, with its lineage tracing back to the Manhattan Project and the race to develop the atomic bomb during World War Following that war, Congress created the Atomic Energy Commission in 1946 to oversee the sprawling nuclear scientific and industrial complex supporting the Manhattan Project and to maintain civilian government control over atomic research and development During the early Cold War years, the Commission focused on designing and producing nuclear weapons and developing nuclear reactors for naval propulsion. The creation of the Atomic Energy Commission ended the exclusive government use ofthe atom and began thegrowth. ofthe commercial nuclear power industry, with the Commission having authority to regulate the. new industry. . In response to changing needs and an extended energy crisis, the Congress passed the Department of Energy Organization Act in 19?? creating the Department of Energy. That legislation brought together for the first time, not only most of the government?s. energy. programs, but. also science and technology programs and defense responsibilities that included the design, construction and testing ofnuclear weapons. The Department provided the framework for a comprehensive and balanced national energy plan by coordinating and administering the energy functions ofthe Federal Government. The Department undertook responsibility for long-term, high?risk research and development of energy technology, Federal power marketing, some energy conservation activities. the nuclear weapons programs, some energy regulatory programs and a central energy data collection and analysis program. I - - manulacluretl hv ?L-i-"aulteslm l-Ilectrir Syslems will help to uiotlel'uixeille electrical gridlor the, 2 century. Mill used in roll uranium inlo rods for subsequent I'al?lricnlion into fuel elemenls in Ft?l?l?lviltIJH I?lanl {1 1?holo tulten in 195M Over its. history, the Department has. shifted its. emphasis and focus as the energy and security needs ofthe Nation have changed. (in February 2009, the. Department was significantly impacted by President Dbama signing into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 [Recovery Act or The Recovery Act more than doubled the Department?s budget by providing an additional $35.2 billion offending. for the acceleration. of a. number of critical commitments in the Department?s mission and activities. 2 Agency Financial Report Fiscal 1l?ear201'l US. Department of Energy Agmy @Irgjem?ze??m? OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY ?War-1' Dr. Steven F'Iel'g'y' secr?ary Pe guletcr'w' 'In'm as on Prc-je: 5 lug-em? US. Department at" Energy Daniel B. Poneman Deputy Secretary ?151 Serueg? :5 IIle er [hare?f?r (:Prlqal d'I Frag I 33-? Melvin G. Williams Jr Associate Deputy Secretary 3. Pe I'vesz'nent Act Iii-"ice I 1 Office of the Oifice oi the Olfice of the frl?? rrn-Ji rI Ear-eta", far Under Secretary' for Under Secretary lar Under Secretary are?: Nuclear Securityr Science bfn'rfi ll i Deal-:11" fl" Int?J'- La 7. Ste-?on "d?r?tmt'cr? I I-Irler erremry' Under Sane-Law II: wry r1 :ll ,?Ju?l l'rJl'lu' l'l" CI Ii"? I'l.'Il ll.I H: l tnc?rq r- l"LIr"' I- lI - .1-.- ll' II .1lllI-.- I-II- I I . I '22- .Ill'll .- ll-lll-p- HT Jill'll' 3' "ll-I'll a?c- era?s: E: Ic-f fit-W" atmn . . . HP Agent}: Financial Repurt Year 201 '1 h: IIzrr I F5 AGENCY HIGHLIGHTS AGENCY HIGHLIGHTS Financial Resources Adjusted Appropriate-d Amounts [Adjustments include appropriation transfers, reductions and appropriations temporarily not available] 40 35 $29.53 LU $24.5 $24.9 in billions U1 U1 2001i 2003 2009 2010 2011 Fiscal Year Base Appropriations I Recovery;r Act Appropriations Loan Programs [Original billion of Recovery Act Appropriations was later reduced by $3.5 billion in transfers and rescissions. Amounts do not include the Western Area and Bonneville Power Atlministrations? borrowing authorityr and credit reform financing accounts] Assets and Liabilities 400 350 $337.3 $344.0 5351-5 $3.555l $371.4 300 $182.0 $133billions 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Assets Liabilities YEAR 4 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy AGENCY HIGHLIGHTS Human Capital Resources Federal and Contractor Employees 120,000 991370 100,072 100,000 9537 91,353 91,294 30,000 60,000 40,000 End-of?Year Employment 20 000 14,801 15,320 15,207 15,410 16,036 I I I I I 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 FISCAL YEAR Contractor Employees {based on actual and estimated headcounts} Federal Employees - includes DOE and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Employees Financial Management Report Card REQUIREMENT 0R INITIATIVE SUPPORTING. INDICATORS. [see page references for more. detail]. Government Management Reform Act -Financial Unquali?Ed AUdit 013mm? [Pages 104 and 119] Statement Audit No Material Weaknesses [Section 11} [pages 23 andll9} Financial, Systems generally, conform to [Section requirements and no FISMA signi?cant deficiencies identified [pages 2.3 81119] Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act - Internal Controls [Section . Financial Systems [Section No Material Weaknesses [see pages 23and 119] Elm OMB, Circular A-123, Appendix A Substantially comply with Federal ?nancial management system Federal Financial Management Improvement Act requirements [see pages 23 and 119] Substantially comply with FISMA requirements as. evidenced by Federal Informatlon Secur1ty Management Act annual FISMA rep?rting data El Improper Payments Information Act, as overall Erroneous Payment Rate and not susceptible to amended by the Improper Payments Elimination significant improper payments [pages 121-123]. 8: Recovery Act a 5 AgenCy Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy AGENCY HIGHLIGHTS Performance Summary The tables in this section will be updated with 2011 data in the Department's P'r' 2(111 Annual Performance Report available in. February 2012. Fiscal Year 2009 Performance Fiscal Year 2010 Performance ACTIVITY (includes. Recovery Act projects] Targets Targets Results Targets Targets Results Met Not Met Unknown Met Not. Met. Unknown Strategic Gooi I: Transform Our Energy Systems. Electricity Delivery 8: Energy Reliability 13 2 15 I Western Area Power Administration 3 1 I1 Bonneville Power Administration 3 3 Southeastern PowerAdministration 2 2 Southwestern Power Administration 1 I1- Solar Energy 3 ?1 ,7 2 Wind Energy 5 3 ?1 Geothermal Technologies in 1 2 Water Power 3 3 I Biomass 8i Biorefine ry Systems 2 in Ci Hydrogen Technology 5 1 I1- Vehicle Technologies 2 ,7 2 Industrial Technologies in 1 '5 1 Building Technologies 2 ,7 3 Federal Energy Management Program 31- 5 1 Facilities 8.: Infrastructure 43 2 'l Weatherization 1 1 State Energy Programs 3 2 Appliance Rebates 1 1 Community Renewable Energy Deployment 1 Energy. Ef?ciency, 81 Conversation Block Grants 1 Fossil Energy '3 :1 Near-Zero Atmospheric Emissions Coal-Based 12 1 12 Electricity 8: Hydrogen Production Petroleum Reserves '3 '3 New Nuclear. GenerationTechnologies 5 5 National Nuclear Infrastructure 2 3 Energy. Information Administration 3 '5 Loan Programs 2 1 1 2 Advanced Research Projects. Agency-Energy 1 1 Total Goall 122 24 2 111.": 2? 5 Strategic Gooi 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise High Energy Physics ?31 2 '1 i} '1 Nuclear Physics '1 3 3 '1 5 Biological Environmental Research 1 3} '12 '1 Fusion Energy Sciences ?3 4 Basic Energy Sciences '1 i} 11'} Advanced Scienti?c Computing Research 4 {3 1 Infrastructure 2 2 4 Pellet-inimstr Career Awards 1 Small Business Research 1 Total ?nal Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy AGENCY HIGHLIGHTS Fiscal Year 2009. Performance Fiscal Year 2010. Performance. ACTIVITY Targets. Targets. Results. Targets. Targets Results Met Not Met Unknown Met Not. Met. Unknown Strategic Goal 3: Secure Our Nation - Of?ce of the Administrator 2 2 Directed Stockpile Work 4- 1 2 2 Science Campaign 4- 2 1 Engineering Campaign 5 5 inertial Con?nement Fusion Ignition 8.: High Yield 5 3 2 1 Campaign Advanced Simulation 8: Computing Campaign 4- 4 Readiness?ampaign 4 3 Readiness. in Technical Base. Facilities F: 4 Secure Transportation Asset 3 Nuclear Counterterrorism. incident Response '1 '1 Facilities 8; Infrastructure. Recapitalization 3 2 Site Stewardship 2 2 1 Defense Nuclear Security 3 4 Cyber Securityr F: 'l Nonproliferation Verification REED 6 l3 Elimination of Weapons?Grade Plutonium Production 4 'l 2 Nonproliferation International Security 5 5 International Nuclear Materials. Protection 34 5 2 3 Cooperation Fissile Materials Disposition 2 'l 2 '1 Global. Threat Reduction initiative 4 4 Naval Reactors 5 Environmental Management 23 '18 3f} 1 1 Legacy Management 1 1 2 Nuclear Waste Disposal 2 'l final 3 22 95' 2 5 3 'l'oml 285 ('32 3 223 65 f3 Shari: Mai. 81%, TQIHJ US. Department of" Energy Agency Financial Report FiSCai 1rear 201 '1 7 AGENCY HIGHLIGHTS Major Laboratories and Field Facilities .: r/?Roi-.I-. I 1 - "t .I men?d I C'Iae'aT cIn' O'??ces LabcI'atar es ?r I .I I eld :ZI??ceE'te orPr-ajedO??ces _pecia urpoag rtes I .I Dr II J. . Power Atla'inistratiIrI"s II I Sew ce Bias ness Center Illinois C3 NNSA Ser'rce Center South Carolina Saa-annal' Mari-anal Laboratory Sadoia Nat o_na _abo'atories Saacia 5 re Uf?-ce Waste Isc-lat on Dilot Plant Alaska 0 Art Ene'gy Of?ce Argorne Nat c-nal _abo'atory Cl Coicago Fern'II ?.atiodal Acce Laboratory Fer-ti Site Of?ce New EIu-?sw :k Laboratory ?43th I New California EIedIeley Ste Cf?ce 3 Ham-Technology Eng needt'g E'oo IIl'IaIren Site Of?ce Center Lawrence Ber Ireley Nationa Laboratory Iowa IfncIl Atom'c C'ower La oc-rato Lawrence Nat onal Antes Laboratory Schenectady Naval Reacta's C?Fce Laboratory 'I-lI'est'II'a leII' De'ronstratio-I FroIie-ct Srte Of?ce Kentucl-t Sand a Hationa Laboratc-r es *1 Gaseous Diffus on 3 ant Ohio national ?cteleratc' F'ro-ect O'Tice Colarntas Laboratory Managere?t Drolec: Of?ce E2 Cor-.50 Icsted Business Center Sortsmolat? Gasec-Ls [Jif?usica Plant 31 Strategic F'etr-a earn Reserve I Colorado Go Elen Fie cl I?rf?ce Of?ce Nat cInal ?enewaole Energy.I Hansas Cry 3 ant Kansas City Site Sf?ce Ergoul'rauen Natl-anal La [aerator-I- IE) Bouthwene-n Dower An In {a Sax-annal- Doeratic-Is Sawannal? P. Her Site Cn??ce Iennesiee East Tennessee Tecnnc-Icgy Sari: Oar; Ridge Nat onal _atcratory {a Daerd site :3 Of?ce Scienti?c and Technical n?atntar on L. Ste-C?ce C: 3ar'IteIIt Plant and Site Oriice National Energy ?ech'IcIl-agtr Lab Sugar -an-d Virginia I . ef"erso" Nat onal Accelerator _Fac Ito The as _Ief?erso "te Lift ce Laboratory Oregon CD 'es'IeIn Area F's-ruer Ad on ??9?'Iafla j_ -. am? a 5'3 '9 Ail Pill-?WC? '1 ?i National 35 Nevada National Site aq-II _abcratory A Pen I: Northeast Horne Heating OI Re sew-es New Jersey: 3 Northeast Home Heating Oil aeser-Ie PI nceto'r Plasma cs at Princeton Ste Cf?ce Car Sgag :ield II-t??Ice Inha atIo'I col-age ?esearch Institute Los Metros Natic-na Labo?atory Los Ala tnos Sne ce II: Nat cIna Train ng :Ienter national ?echralcgy -abc ratory Datsbargn ?.a'I'al Reacto's La bcIrato'jI' :lElC Of?ce District of Columbia ?I'I'asn r-gton Headquarters Georg 'a Southeastern 3ower Ad In nistta?rio Idaho Idaho National LaooraterjrI 0 Idaho Speeders Radio og ca Et?I'iIontI?e'1ta Sciences Laboratory 8 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 Een 5 Atom I: Power -ab-cmtow Nc-rt'Ieas': Hoa?e I-Ieat or; =3 Reserve Washington Hanforc Dazi?c Morrow-est National -aboratorfI- Daci?c ?sortowest Site Cf?ce 5 :4 Of?ce oern-er Protect on I w' West ?aIati-a al Energy 'ech'I cIlagII -ab-a ratorfI' MI: rganto wn Hamming I5 Reserve No. Casper US. Department of Energy-r Strategic Plan and Program Performance he narrative below discusses. recent results and outcomes for DOE programs. as aligned with the strategic goals presented in the new DUE .S?lrntetnc Plan that was released in May ofthis year. A detailed discussion of results of each ofthe agency's ?scal year 2011. performance goals, assessment methodology, metrics, relevant external reviews, and documentation of performance data will be presented in the DOE Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Performance Report. This report will be released with the agency's Fiscal Year 2013 Congressional Budget Request in February 2012. Goal 1 Transform Our Energy Systems Catahxze the timely, material, and ejjficient transformation of the nation ?s energy system and secure US. leadership in. clean energy. technologies Objectives: I Deploy the technologies we have I Discover. the new. solutions we need I. Lead the national conversation on energy Supporting Of?ces: ARPA-E Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy Information Administration Fossil Energy Loan Programs Nuclear Energy Power Marketing Administrations Currently, more than 80% oftotal U.S. primary. energy. and more than 95% of transportation fuel comes from fossil resources; these percentages are expected to change little over the next 25 years under a business?as? usual scenario. . While 05. energy consumption. and carbon?dioxide. emissions are also. expected to increase. significantly in this scenario, global energy consumption will rise more than twice as quickly due to growing population and increasing development in non- Organisation for Economic {So-operation and Development countries. Likewise, water is integral to many energy technologies, and related water demands could be amplified in the future if climate change alters regional water cycles. Our energy technology activities should be cognizant of this interdependence. This context frames the challenge before us: to achieve our long-term energy and environmental goals, we must change. our current energy paradigm through concerted effort across public and private. sectors. The. following are examples of recent outcomes and benefitsto US. citizens from DUE investments. in. energy. transformation and clean energy. Solar Breakthroughs: Alta Devices single-junction thin- ?lm Gallium Arsenide [GaAs] photovoltaic technology recently achieved a National Renewable Energy Laboratory record 28.2% conversion efficiency. The company utilizes an epitaxial lift-offtechnique. pioneered by University of. California Berkeley's Eli Yablonovitch that allows Alta to produce ?exible layers of GaAs with a thickness of only one micron. Eventually, Alta thinks that it will be able to build its. modules at a cost of around $0.50 per watt. President and CEO Chris. Norris recently creditedthe SunShot initiative?s aggressive. cost targets with helping spur. the spirit of innovation at his own company: ?The goal of achieving the $1 per installed watt target, set by the Department of Energy, has energized our. entire company.? Concentrated photovoltaic manufacturer Solar Junction's multi?junction solar cell recently achieved. an NREL-confirmecl world record 43.5% conversion efficiency, easily. surpassing the previous record of42.3%. Solar Junction's multi-junction cells. employ multiple. semiconductor layers in order. to absorb more ofsunlight, allowing for increased ef?ciency. Plants. as. Fuels: A team ofresearchers at the BioEnergy Science Center pinpointed. the exact, single gene. that controls ethanol production capacity. in a microorganism. found in many types ofbiomass crops. This discovery could be the missing link in developing biomass crops that produce higher concentrations ofethanol. Scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory have developed a computational model for analyzing the metabolic processes in rapeseed plants particularly. those related to the production ofoils in their. seeds. This model will help to optimize the production of plant oils that have. widespread potential as renewable. resources for fuel and industrial chemicals. Airborne Wind Technology: .The hope ofharnessing high altitude wind power has been alive for years, but initial deployments have yet to succeed due tostrict Federal. Aviation Authority safety regulations. that apply to. anything ?ying above. 2,000. feet. Furthermore, the historical lack of support from government agencies. suggests a high level of risk for potential investors. The Advanced Research Project Agency Energy helped high-altitude hopefuls gain ground last year by awarding California-based Makani Power $3 million to. advance its airborne. wind technology. Makani?s Airborne. U.S. Department ofEnergy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 9 STRATEGIC PLAN AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE Wind Turbine aims to capture wind power at altitudes below 2,000 feet and where Federal Aviation Administration safety regulations are milder, but still high enough to extract energy from more powerful, consistent winds. Clean Energy Projects: DOE fills an important gap providing debt financing for innovative clean energy projects helping to bridge the "valley-of?death? in the clean energy technology development cycle, between the pilot- lacility stage and commercial maturity, where companies find it difficult to obtain the financing needed to deploy their technologies at commercial scale. DUE finalized a number of transformative projects in FY 2011. These include PUET's Project Liberty, one of the nation?s ?rst cellulosic ethanol power plants located in Iowa. The partial loan guarantee to Project Amp will support the distributed generation of an estimated 733 megawatts of electricity using photovoltaic solar panels installed on approximately 7?50 commercial rooftops in 28 states. When completed, the Aqua Caliente Project in Arizona will be the largest PV generation facility in the world. DOE has also supported several ofthe world's. largest concentrating solar power facilities that will triple the nation?s currently- installed concentrated solar photovoltaic capacity. Advanced Battery Factory: Johnson Controls in Holland, Michigan a once shuttered factory is helping speed up the advanced battery industry in the United States. This long dormant plant was revived by a $300 million grant through DOE which allowed Johnson Controls to secure the private investments it needed to select the Holland facility over several overseas locations. Similar DOE investments have helped position the United States to lead the charge in advanced battery production, practically building the industry from the ground up in less than two years. Smart Grid Deployment: CenterPoint Energy is one of the nation?s leaders in smart grid technologies. With the help of$200 million from DOE, the company is building a smarter, more reliable, electrical system for Houston?s residents. The project is deploying a total of 2.2 million smart meters, more than 500 grid monitoring sensors, automation at 30 different substations, and a range of energy use tools to help families save money on their energy bills every month. New Research Center Established: The Energy Innovation Hub for Nuclear Energy, administered by the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors is expected to help accelerate the advancement of nuclear reactor technology. CASL researchers are using supercomputers to study the performance oflight water reactors and to develop highly sophisticated modeling that will help accelerate upgrades at existing ll.S. nuclear plants. This work will enable better understanding of reactor performance so that designers and operators can achieve maximum efficiency while providing continued improvements in reliability and safety. The facility, headquartered at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, brings together four national labs, three industry partners and three universities in a highly collaborative effort to develop tools that will advance new generations of nuclear reactors and safely extend the life and reliability of existing plants. National Carbon Capture Center Launches Past- Conibastion Test Center: The recent successful commissioning ofan Alabama-based test facility is another step forward in research that will speed deployment of innovative post-combustion carbon dioxide capture technologies for coal-based power plants. Technologies tested at the Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Center are an important component ofcarbon capture and storage, whose commercial deployment is considered by many experts as essential for helping to reduce human- generated carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to potential climate change. ChaHenges improving Electricity Delivery: Reliable, efficient, affordable, and secure delivery of electric power requires innovative solutions, including large grid-scale energy storage and grid integration ofelectric vehicles and intermittent power sources such as wind and solar. Increasing Clean Transportation: Enabling widespread utilization of hybrid vehicles requires advanced batteries with substantially higher energy and power densities, lower costs, and faster recharge times. Extracting Natural Gas Cleanly and Safely: Natural gas will continue to play an important role in the nation?s energy portfolio, helping create jobs, stimulate the economy, and provide an alternative to imported oil. However, this is built on the ability to work with industry to improve the environmental performance ofthe processes. What can be done now to increase safe and responsible production of natural gas is directly connected to the long?term ability to develop this fuel source. {2315]. modelng lIIltl capabilities Iol' predicting simulalimi ol'liglii waiter reociors. 10 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy STRATEGIC PLAN AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE Goal 2 The Science and Engineering Enterprise Moin toin vibront U5. effort in science and engineering. as cornerstone of our economic prosperity, with. clear leadership in strategic oreos Objectives: I Extend our knowledge of the natural world 0 Deliver new technologies to advance our mission I Sustain a world. leading. technical workforce Supporting Of?ces: Science he Department of Energy supports basic research into .the smallest constituents of matter; the most fleeting subatomic, atomic, and chemical transitions; and the structure and properties ofmaterials and biological systems. We are. the largest federal funder of physical sciences. Our research extends our understanding of nature; enables new technologies that support the Department?s energy, environment, and security missions; and improves the quality oflife of all Americans. Scientific discovery feeds technology development: and, conversely, technology advances enable scientists to pursue an ever more. challenging set of questions. The Department strives to maintain leadership in ?elds where this feedback is particularly strong, including materials science research, bio-energy research. and high-performance computing. The following are examples of recent outcomes and bene?ts to US. citizens from DUE investments in science and engineering. Trapping the Light Fantastic: A new solar cell design uses advanced optics and nanotechnology to maximize performance and minimize cost. One ofthe more. promising new applications of nano-optics to solar energy is the work of Harry Atwater and his team at the California Institute of Technology. Starting with a focus on harvesting and trapping light, Atwater?s group has developed an entirely new design for a thin-?lm silicon solar cell, which promises to achieve ef?ciencies rivaling today?s top-of?the-Iine commercial silicon. cells, at potentially a fraction ofthe cost. lfsuccessfu], the technology could help take us a step closer to "grid parity,? the Iong-sought-after point at which solar photovoltaics become inexpensive enough to be genuinely cost? competitive with fossil fuel-generated electricity. . In. the. space ofa year, Atwater?s unusually promising design has gone. from. the lab. bench to the early. stages. of. commercialization. aided by a $1 million incubator grant from DOE and a newly raised round ofventure capital. General Electric Co. Uses DOE Advanced Light Sources to Develop Revolutionary Battery Technology: The company is. constructing a new. battery factory in upstate. New. York that is expected to create over 300 jobs. The new batteries, based on sodium metal halide technology, boast three times the energy density and charging power ofthe lead- acid batteries they are designed to replace. GE engineers also say the batteries have long cycle life, withstanding thousands upon thousands ofcharge and discharge cycles, for expected lifetimes of up to 20 years, and can operate in a wide range of temperature environments. To help achieve these breakthroughs, GE researchers relied on two of the nation?s most advanced and sophisticated scientific user facilities, the. National Light Source. at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Advanced Photon Source at DDE's Argonne National Laboratory outside Chicago. Superfast Search Engine Speeds Past. the Competition: Computer scientists at the DDE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory developed a new approach to searching massive databases. Embodied in open-source software called FastBit, the new method can search massive databases 10 to 100 times faster than large commercial database software, depending on the specific application. Originally developed to sort through the massive data produced by nuclear physics experiments, the software has found important commercial uses. A German-based. pharmaceutical ?rm has used the software to accelerate drug discovery. Still other companies have used it to analyze computer network performance or rapidly comb through masses of ?nancial data. Fundamental Studies in Catalysis Enable Use of "Lean-Burn" Engines for Vehicles: In recent years, DUE research has focused on solving the vexing issues that have been preventing the. fuel. efficient lean-burn engine from becoming a commercial reality for today?s vehicles. . Lean- burn engines operate at very. high air-to-fuel ratios and, in this way, can improve fuel efficiency by more than 25% over standard gasoline engines. Unfortunately, these higher ratios mean. that emission. control devices developed for standard gasoline engines are not effective for. removing nitrogen oxides. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's. catalysis. research. program, sponsored by Office of Science, performed research that led to a better understanding of how the catalyst functions and enabled improvements in catalytic converter performance. 100 Awards: DOE researchers. have. won 36. of the 100 awards given out for 2011 by Magazine for the most outstanding technology developments with promising commercial potential. The coveted awards are presented annually. in recognition of exceptional new products, US. Department ofEnergy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 11 STRATEGIC PLAN AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE processes, materials or software developed throughout the world and introduced into the market the previous year. Cha?enges Global Competitiveness: America today faces not only ?erce international economic competition, but competition across a wide spectrum of activities, including growing competition. in. science and in scientific. facilities. . Meeting Goal 3 Secure Our Nation the challenge may require new technologies for producing, storing, and using energy with performance levels far beyond what is now possible. Such technologies spring from scienti?c breakthroughs. Developing a. Technical Workforce: There is a growing need in the private and public sectors, for scientists and engineers, including researchers. Providing technical and scientific training is vital to ensure that America remains competitive and prosperous. Enhance nuclear security through defense, nonproliferation, and environmental ejjforts Objectives: . I. Support the. US. nuclear stockpile and. future military. needs I. Reduce global. nuclear dangers. I. Apply. our. capabilities. for. other. critical national. security missions I. Support responsible civilian nuclear. power development and fuel cycle management I. Complete environmental. remediation of. our legacy and. active. sites. Supporting Of?ces: Environmental Management Intelligence and Counterintelligence Legacy Management National Nuclear Security Administration he Department of Energy?primarily through the National. Nuclear Security Administration?is. central to preventing proliferation and nuclear terrorism and sustaining a safe. secure, and effective nuclear arsenal. We have added responsibility for cleaning up the environmental legacy ofthe Cold War's nuclear weapons complex. Through engagement with. the International Atomic Energy Agency and directly with other international and interagency partners, the Department has a leading role in nonproliferation and cooperative threat?reduction programs. This expertise positions the Department ideally to help shape policy surrounding future deployment of nuclear power globally. Just as the Department is the trusted authority on the safety, security, and effectiveness ofthe U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, it can apply science, technology, and engineering to ensure future nuclear power systems can be deployed safely and securely with appropriate mitigation ofrisks from terrorism and proliferation. The Department has the monumental task ofcleaning up the environmental legacy from five decades of nuclear weapons development and government-sponsored nuclear energy research. We have been successfully mitigating the technically challenging risks and have made substantial progress in nearly every area ofnuclear waste cleanup, including stabilizing and consolidating special nuclear material and safely storing tons of used nuclear fuel. We have continued to build momentum in disposing ofsolid radioactive wastes, remediating contaminated soil and water, and deactivating and decommissioning radioactively contaminated facilities, with each succeeding year building on the last. Our intelligence and Counterintelligence program provides the Secretary, his staff, and other policymakers within the Department timely, technical intelligence analyses on all aspects of foreign nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, and energy issues worldwide. The following are examples of recent outcomes and benefits to U.S. citizens. from DOE investments in securing our nation. Ratification and Implementation of New START: DDEINational Nuclear Security Administration played an essential role in enabling U.S. Senate consideration ofthe New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty which President Dbama submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent on May 13, ZDID. This included testimony in support of the Treaty by Secretary Chu and NNSA Administrator D?Agostino, responses to numerous questions for the record associated with future plans to maintain the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, and the development of material to further enable long- term planning and support for the stockpile stewardship program and required infrastructure. The Senate provided its advice and consent on December 22, 201i], and New START entered into force on February 5, 2011. DDEXNNSA continues to play an important role in Treaty implementation, including in the Treaty's Bilateral Consultative Commission, and utilizes expertise across the 12 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy STRATEGIC PLAN AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE Nuclear Security Enterprise for work such as assessing Russian radiation detection equipment for use during inspections in the United States. United States-Russia Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: In January 2011, the United States and Russia brought into force a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement [Section 123 Agreement] that establishes the legal basis for 0.5. and Russian industry to engage in significant nuclear commerce. The agreement establishes a solid foundation for long-term civil nuclear cooperation, provides commercial opportunities for US. industry, and enhances U.S.?Russian cooperation on important nuclear nonproliferation goals. Pursuant to its statutory authority, 00E provided technical support in the negotiation of the agreement and will have the lead role in its implementation. Rules on Sensitive Exports Strengthened: DUE recently helped secure international agreement on a landmark change to the nuclear supply regime. After seven years of negotiations, the 46?member Nuclear Suppliers Group agreed to new guidelines that impose specific criteria for access to the most sensitive and dangerous elements of the nuclear fuel cycle, enrichment and reprocessing For over 30 years, the NSC?the world's most important nuclear trade rule-making body? has urged holders of sensitive nuclear technology to "exercise restraint" in decisions about exports, but until now, has imposed few specific conditions on this trade. In 2003, however, it was confirmed that AD. Khan?s international smuggling ring had proliferated uranium enrichment technology to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and perhaps elsewhere; and the NSC initiated an effort to strengthen its ENR guidelines. Global Threat Reduction Initiative In support of President Ubama's goal to secure all vulnerable material in four years, as of Iuly 2011 3,085 kilograms [including shipments from Poland. Belarus, Serbia, Ukraine, Canada, Italy, and Belgium] were removed. In addition GTRI has shut down or verified as shutdown 76 reactors, supported the shipment to the United States of the first low enriched uranium-based [do-99 produced in South Africa accelerated four U.S. domestic projects to produce the medical isotope lilo-09 without the use ofhighly enriched uranium, and secured a total of 1,024 buildings with high activity radiological materials. Zheleznogorsk Plutonium Production Elimination Project: In July 2011, this project fulfilled its commitments under the 2003 Plutonium Production Reactors Agreement by providing assistance to supply heat to the city, after the shutdown ofthe last plutonium production reactor. In August 2011, the US. government met its commitment to provide capability for replacement heat and electricity to the city onheleznogorsk with the completion ofa new heating plant. Six donor countries provided financial assistance. Capability for replacement heat and electricity was required because of the April 2010 shutdown of the last Russian weapons-grade plutonium production reactor. Radiation Detection Systems: The Second Line ofDefense program achieved a major milestone by completing deployments of radiation detection systems at all 380 Federal Customs Service of Russia crossing points [airports, seaports, and land crossings]. This achievement was completed as a cost-shared cooperative effort with Russian partners and will help prevent, detect and interdict the illicit movement of nuclear or radioactive material. Each side contributed resources to approximately half the Customs sites. All sites in the North West Customs Directorate [approximately 60 crossings] were integrated electronically to local, regional and Moscow-based oversight and technical support organizations. The SLO program also completed work in the Republic ofGeorgia. Approximately ports, airports, and border crossings were equipped with radiation detection systems and have been networked to provide oversight and technical support. In addition, mobile detection systems have been provided to Border Police and other organizations. Weapons Dismantled: The Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition program successfully executed the actions to completely dismantle the B53 ahead ofthe current schedule. The B53 isa 1960?sera weapon weighing in at approximately 10,000 pounds, making it the largest and heaviest weapon in the stockpile. The B53 Dismantlement Team?s commitment, strategic focus, and ability to accelerate the salvage of national asset parts proved beneficial to non-proliferation and counter-terrorism efforts. First Integrated Ignition Experiments: The National Ignition Facility recently completed its first integrated ignition experiment using a 192?beam laser system to ?re one megajoule oflaser energy into its first cryogenically layered capsule raising the drive energy by a factor of 30 over previously conducted experiments. The successful completion of the test means NIF, the world's largest and highest-energy laser system, will move forward with the next phase ofits campaign to culminate in fusion ignition tests. Built as a part of the NNSA program to ensure the safety, security and effectiveness of the nuclear weapons stockpile without underground testing, NlP's laser system is expected to be the first to demonstrate reliable fusion ignition the same force that powers the sun and the stars in a laboratory environment. Uranium Disposition: NNSA achieved the goal of eliminating a cumulative 124 metric tons of U.S. surplus highly enriched uranium [enough for more than 2,600 nuclear weapons] by downblending it to low enriched uranium for peaceful use as fuel in power and research reactors. U.S. Department ofEnergy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 13 STRATEGIC PLAN AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE Plutonium Disposition: The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility enabled the United States to meet its commitments in the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement the 2010 Protocol that amended the PMDA, and the 2006 Liability Protocol, which all entered into force on. july 13, 2011, by exchanging diplomatic notes between the United States and Russia. Construction of is approximately 44% complete with more than 95,000 cubic yards ofreinforced concrete and more than 16,000 tons ofrebar installed, as well as 11 of 16 auxiliary buildings complete. Environmental. Cleanup Milestones: By the end of September 2011, the DOE Environmental Management program completed the majority of projects in its $6 billion environmental cleanup portfolio under the Recovery Act. A few examples follow: Fina! Hanfora Offsite lWaste Shipment Leaves idaho Treatment Facility - The Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project recently completed the last of 25 shipments of waste bound for permanent disposal in New Mexico and Nevada, six months ahead ofa regulatory deadline. It took 7? shipments to bring the 923 BS?gallon drums of waste from the Hanford Site in Washington to AMWTP. After characterization and compaction operations, the waste left AMWTP in 25 shipments to permanent disposal locations. The transuranic waste was shipped to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, and two, 100-gallon drums ofmixed low-level waste were shipped to the Nevada National Security Site. Paducah, Kentucky Crews for DOE cleanup contractor ?nished work in the C-340 Metals Plant at the Paducah Site in early August ofthis year. The two?year cleanup project means another inactive Cold War complex is ready for demolition. Richiond, Washington Workers have reduced the Hanford Site by approximately 50% or 290 square miles; cleared away dozens of facilities and waste sites; removed legacy wasteand fuels. from onsite. inventory and underground storage; prepared complex facilities for demolition ahead ofschedule; and constructed a network of wells, pipelines and treatment systems to expand and enhance groundwater treatment capabilities by millions ofgallons per day. ChaHenges Nuclear Deterrence: The challenge is to build on the national consensus demonstrated. with. the bipartisan. ratification ofthe New START and carry the momentum forward by continuing investments in key nuclear security capabilities. This will enable the nation to resolve current technical challenges and give this and future administrations the confidence needed to further reduce. our number ofnuclear weapons, while providing the ?exibility to respond appropriately in an unpredictable global environment. Russian Program: The primary challenge now that the PMDA has entered inth force is to conclude the implementing arrangements and milestone plan for the allocation ofthe $400 million pledge in 0.5. assistance. The balance of the approximately $2.5 billion cost will be provided by the Russian Federation. Nuclear Material Storage: The administration continues to believe that nuclear energy has an important role to play as America moves to a clean energy future. As part ofthe commitment to restarting the American nuclear industry and creating thousands ofnew jobs and export opportunities in the process, the government is committed to finding a sustainable approach to assuring safe, secure long-term disposal ofused nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear. Future was formed by the Secretary of Energy at the request of the President to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and recommend a new plan. In luly 2011, the Commission issued a draft ofits recommendations. A i-?ii-w Nll-' tnrgol laser Iliroilgh the laser onlrunri- hole. I?lmlo is courtesy of LIN 14 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy STRATEGIC PLAN AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE Goal 4 Management and Operational Excellence Establish an operational and adaptable framework that combines the best wisdom of all Department stakeholders to maximize mission success Objectives:.. 0 Achieve. operational and technical excellence - Implement a performance-based culture Supporting Of?ces: Chief Financial Of?cer. Chief Human Capital Officer Chief Information. Officer Congressional. and Intergovernmental. Affairs Economic Impact and Diversity General Counsel Health, Safety, and Security Hearings and Appeals. Inspector General Management Policy and International Affairs Public Affairs. he Secretary has challenged all who serve within the Department of Energy to achieve and sustain a commitment to Management and Operational Excellence in support ofthe mission from headquarters, to every site office and service center, and every laboratory and production facility. The following are other examples of management initiatives and the progress made during FY 2011: Horizontal Integration: To help realize this goal, Secretary Chu established the Associate Deputy Secretary position in February 2011. In support of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary, the Associate Deputy Secretary drives improvements in mission execution and assures that they are efficiently and effectively implemented throughout the Department. A key focus in FY 2011 was to improve horizontal integration across the Department. To that end, we now have six key decision-making bodies that are meeting routinely, discussing issues, and making decisions from an enterprise-wide perspective. Project and Contract Management: We are measurably starting to improve our. performance in project and contract management. The Of?ce of Science, for example, exceeded the target for completing more than 90% of capital asset projects at the original scope and within 110% ofthe cost baseline. In FY 2011, they achieved a 100% success rate -- a Department first. Employee. Hiring Time: Efforts. have been underway to reduce average time?to?hire for General Schedule and equivalent positions [from initiation. date to entry on duty date) from a 124 to 80-day average while continuing to attract quality hires, and to ensure the right skill sets are onboard. time-to-hire was ranked number two, most improved agency, by the Federal Times [August 2, 2011].. In FY. 201 the average. was reduced to 100 days. In addition, recent progress has been made to develop a tracking and reporting system to provide more meaningful data for hiring managers. Streamlined Requirements: While ensuring continued safe and secure mission performance, the Department?s Office of Health, Safety and Security reviewed its complete set ofrequirements and reduced those that were duplicative or conflicting, placed authorities at the appropriate level, invoked external standards where possible, and streamlined process requirements and decision-making. Continual Learning Program: In FY 2011, we initiated enhancements to our Continual Learning Program to ensure that we develop the most highly-qualified, capable, and ?exible Federal workforce, moving us towards a more performance?based culture. Key among them was implementation ofa "managers training managers? professional development training module which is clearly communicating performance expectations among our managers. This training employs a case study approach, is interactive, and will he provided to our senior leaders throughout FY 2012. Other enhancements are being rolled out in the coming year. Diversity and Inclusion: In July 2011, we concluded a comprehensive review of workforce diversity and inclusion policies and programs. The ?ndings from this analysis, which have been shared with DOE senior management, indicate that we can do more to create. a culture that values diversity, which in turn will make the Department an employer of choice and enhance our mission effectiveness. The Secretary has asked each DOE senior leader, manager, and employee to join him in taking immediateand. sustained action to better promote our Department as a positive model ofequal opportunity, diversity, and inclusion. Website Reform:.. In FY 2011, DOE reduced, consolidated, and moved websites to the Energygov platform to achieve cost savings. A new web platform was launched that includes. 16 consolidated sites in an open source content management system and cloud hosting environment. U.S. Department ofEnergy Agency Financial Report Fiscal?iear 2011 15 STRATEGIC PLANNING AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE Fleet Reduction: This past year, we successfully reduced the headquarters fleet by, 35% and, replaced more than T50 vehicles DOE-wide with hybrid vehicles. Strategic Sourcing: By expanding the use of bulk purchasing and other methods, significant costs were saved. or avoided this past year within, the program offices. These initiatives will continue in FY 2(112. Disposition of Excess Real Property: A cumulative 4.6 million gross square feet of excess real property was eliminated in FY 2011, lowering the Department's overall stewardship costs. Support Service Contracts: DOE is aiming to reduce reliance. on support service contracts while also ensuring that our federal workforce retains core competencies, talent, and marketability. in FY 2011, we achieved a 27% reduction, with further work planned in FY 2012. Financial quarterly reporting capability was developed for timely and reliable functional institutionalcost information from our. national. laboratories to improve transparency, trust, and effectiveness towards mission performance. A dashboard prototype is in the development stages. :intl t'ilv oil-t'asliinginli, joined member In install Iho first public t'li?till?lt' vehicle charging slallon In the ll Hirool noiglilml?lioml. 16 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy Management?s Analysis, Assurances and Priorities Analysis of Financial Statements he Department?s. financial statements are included in the Financial Results section ofthis report. Preparing these statements is part of the Department?s goal to improve financial management and provide accurate and reliable. information that is useful for assessing performance and allocating resources. The Department?s management is responsible for the integrity and objectivity of the financial information presented in these. financial statements. The financial statements. have. been. prepared to report the financial position and results ofoperations of the entity, pursuant to. the requirements of31 U.S.C. 3515[b] [United States Code}. The statements have been prepared from the Department?s books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles prescribed by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board and the formats prescribed by the. OMB [Office ofManagement and Budget]. The financial statements are prepared in addition to the financial reports. used to monitor and control budgetary. resources. which are. prepared from the. same books and records. The statements should be read with the realization that they are. for a component of the US. Government, a sovereign entity. Balance Sheet As shown in Chart 1; the Department?s total liabilities exceed assets. Significant balance. changes are detailed in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 4 provides a detailed trend analysis ofthe changes in the Department?s. environmental liability balances over the past 5 years. The largest component of the Department's environmental liability is managed by the Environmental Management program which addresses the legacy of contamination from. the nuclear. weapons complex and includes managing thousands of contaminated facilities formerly used in the nuclear weapons program, overseeing the safe management of large quantities of radioactive waste and nuclear materials. and cleanup oflarge volumes of contaminated soil and water. The active facilities liability includes anticipated remediation costs for active and surplus facilities managed by. the Department's. ongoing program operations and which will ultimately require stabilization, deactivation, and decommissioning. Other legacy liabilities are divided between EM for active sites [including estimated cleanup] and the. Office. of Legacy. Management for post- closure responsibilities [including surveillance and Chart 1: Total Assets and Liabilities with Breakdown of FY 2011 Liabilities 400 5361.5 350 $3318 5344-0 300 U'l $ nb??ons c: 200? 2008 2009 Fiscal Year - Assets - Liabilities $355.6 2010 2011 Liabilities not covered by. Budgetary Resources Liabilities covered by Budgetary Resources Unfunded Environmental Liabilities Pension and Other Actuarial Liabilities Nuclear Waste Fund Deferred Revenues All Other Unfunded Liabilities 17 Agency Financial Report Fiscal YearZDii US. Department of Energy MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS. ASSURANCES AND PRIORITIES monitoring activities; soil and groundwater remediation; liabilities also includes the Department?s share of the and disposition of excess material for sites after the EM estimated future costs ofdispositioning its inventor},r of program activities have been completed]. The other legacy high?level waste and spent nuclear fuel. Chart 2: FY. 2011 Significant Changes in Assets Fund Balance with Treasury Net decrease primarily resulted from expenditure funds 10 (510.5 billion} partially offset by $3.2 billion increase in funds retained 3 from sale of oil stockpile reserves. 6 - Investments Increase due primarily from additional Nuclear Waste Fund receipts 4 from fees collected from owners and generators of spent nuclearfuel and high-level wastes in excess of amounts needed to pay current 2 2 program costs. .2 a Loans and Loan Guarantees 5 2 $1 a Increase primarily due to $4 billion of disbursements on 17 loans partially offset by billion decrease in present value of loans. -4 Strategic Petroleum and Home Heating Oil Reserve Net decrease due to sale of 32 million barrels of stockpile reserves. -3 Re ulator Assets Increase resulted primarily from BPA's residential exchange benefits agreement {see offsetting increase in other liabilities}. Chart 3: FY 2011 Significant Changes, in Liabilities Increase resulted primarily from borrowingfromthe Federal Financing 10 Bank to fund disbursments to loan recipients. - Environmental Cleanup 3 Net increase resultedfrom. unfunded. liability estimate increase [see 6 chart offsetby FY 2011c eanup expenditures of $9.8 billion. - Pension and Other Actuarial Liabilities a $4.3 Contractor pension plan liabilities increased by 52.7 billion and other 2 53-? $3 2 contractor post-retirement benefit plan liabilities decreased by 30.8 u- 5 $04 billion. Themost significant component of the pension plan. increase . resulted from a decrease in the rates used to discount the liabilities to 5 present value, {See chart ?f -2 and Commitments 4 Increase is attributable to changes in spent?nuclearfuel litigation liability estimates (see Chart offset by 5.3 billion of payments '5 related to settlements and final judgments. ?3 I other Liabilities Increase resulted primarily from residential exchange benefits agreement [see offsetng increase in regulatory assets]. 13 Agency, Financial Report Fiscal YearZDii,. US. Department ofEnergy MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS. ASSURANCES AND PRIORITIES Chart 4: Composition of Environmental Cleanup and Disposal Liability 200 $136 $134 130 $165 5153 160 140 120 FY 200? 5 FY zoos m? I FY zoos 30 FY 2oto FY. 2011 553 55.5 559' 5? 55Environmental Management Other Legacy Environment Active and Surplus Facilities Net Cost of Operations The major elements of net cost [see Chart 5] include unfunded liability estimates. Since these. estimates program costs. unfunded liability estimate changes and primarily relate to past years ofoperations, they are not earned revenues. The Statement ofNet Cost also provides included as current year program costs. but rather program cost information along the Department's three reported as ?Costs Not Assigned? on the Consolidated Programmatic Strategic Goals. [see Chart Statements of Net Cost.. Components of. the FY 2011 unfunded liability estimate changes are shown in Chart 7. The Department's overall net costs. are dramatically impacted by changes in environmental and other Chart 5: Major Elements of Net Cost Chart 6: FY 2011 Program Costs (Gross) Breakdown by Programmatic Strategic Goat? Unfunded Liability 544.2 Estimate Changes I Program Costs for 40 Strategic Goals? 5383 Earned Revenues $31.9 an 525.? $25.5 525-? 523. 44% 515.9 43% sew" Transform ii 133 03123;?? Our Energy $11.5 Systems 1" 53,5 $3.7 $3.7 59.0 51133 I -1 l zoo: zoos zoos 2010 2011 Fiscal Year Program Costs for strategic goals exclude certain costs not directly attributable to the strategic goals. such as the cost of reimbursable and other miscellaneous. programs. costs applied to. the. reduction oflegacy environmental liabilities and imputed costs. for the occupational illness program. These excluded costs are more. fully described in Notes 22 -24 ofthe financial statements. US. Department of Energy. Agency Financial Report Fiscal.?r?ear 2011 19 ANALYSIS. ASSURANCES AND PRIORITIES A net increase to the Department's environmental liability estimates during fiscal year 2011 resulted from in?ation adjustments to reflect constant dollars for the current year; improved and updated estimates for the same scope ofwork, including changes resulting from deferral or acceleration of work; revisions in technical approach or scope: and regulatory changes [see Chart The Department's FY 2011 unfunded liability estimates increased by billion for contractor pension plans and decreased by $0.8 billion for contractor postretirement bene?ts other than pensions plans. The. major components of these estimate changes are shown in Chart 8. The most significant component ofthe change resulted from a decrease in the. rates used to discount the liabilities. to present value. These discount rates are based on the yields of high-quality fixed income securities as. of September 30, 2011 and 2010. Plan liabilities also changed due to. differences in actual plan experience for the year compared to the actuarial assumptions for rates of retirement, termination of employment, compensation increases, health care inflation, and other demographic factors, including changes made to those assumptions to better reflect anticipated future experience. The unfunded pension liability was further increased by less. than. expected investment return on pension assets for the year. Iii-searchers al li?i?xll. are using lhe :mt'ient glass from lioman ship Ihnl in Liillil years ago In how In safely store rarlinnrlive u-?aste for millennia inln the [More technology. Chart 7: FY 2011 Unfunded Liability Estimate. Changes 12 $10.2 10 Sin billions Ch $1.9 Spent Nuclear Fuel. Contingency Environmental Liability Estimates $4.5 Contractor Pension and PRB Estimate (see chart 3) Other Agency Financial Report Fiscal YearZDii US. Department of Energy MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS. ASSURANCES AND PRIORITIES Chart 8: Contractor Employee Pension and PRB Liability Estimate Changes 3 52.7 . I Pensmn. Plans 51.0 1 50.5 Sin billions -2 $l1-5} Discount Rate Investment Demographic Changes to Plan Benefits Returns Less and Than Assumptions Changes Change Budgetary Resources The Combined Statements ofBudgetary Resources provide information on the budgetary resources. available to the. Department for the year and the status ofthose resources at the end of the fiscal year. The Department receives most ofits funding from general government funds administered by. the Department ofthe Treasury. [Treasury] and appropriated for Energy?s use by Congress. Since. budgetary accounting rules and financial accounting rules recognize certain transactions at different points in time. Appropriations Used on the Consolidated Statements .1 sin-5 stun . . I Postretlrement Bene?t Plans 51.8 0.9 5 $0.5 50?ll-SI Additional Contributions Interest Expected Total Bene?ts Cost Return on Accrued Assets ofChanges in Net Position will not match costs for that period. The primary difference results from recognition of costs related to changes in unfunded liability estimates. Budget authority from appropriations has increased by billion from FY 2010. As shown in Chart 9. for. FY 2011. The Department's Obligations Incurred decreased by $4.4 billion from FY 2010. This was primarily due to there being no new Recovery Act Funding in FY 2011 resulting in a decrease of $14.7 billion offset by a $10.9 billion increase in the Non Budget Credit Reform Financing Account. Chart 9: Obligations Incurred 30 70 $65 a - Non Budget Credit Reform Financing ED :91 5533 5 Account 0.3 $43 9 50 40 511-2 - Reimbursable Work 2 $32.1 533.2 a an [m 20 General, Special and Revolving Funds 10 0 200? 2008 009 2010 2011 FBcalYear Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 21 0.5. Department of" Energy ANALYSIS. ASSURANCES AND PRIORITIES Chart 10: Recovery Act Appropriations, Obligations and Outlays [Cumulativeamounts through FY 20 1 1 below exclude. the. Western. Area and. Bonneville Power Administrations borrowing authority and credit reform financing accounts]. '13 515'? 51?? I Recovery Act Appropriations $35.2 billion '15 I Obligations $34.6 billion l?l Outlays $13.9 billion 1 '13 .9 . .s 5 1J5- 55.0 '3 $5.3 $4.5 5-4.5 4 sin 53.4 52.5 . 51-9 $1.3 51.? 51.? 51.2 - Energy Conservation Environmental Loan Guarantees ?ior Grid Modernization Carbon Capture and Basic Science Establishment of the and Renewable Management Renewable Energy Sequestration Research Advanced Research Energy Sources and Electric Power Projects Agency- Transmission Projects Energy Chart 11: Linking Priorities, Budget and Cost BUDGETARY PROGRAM. cosrh EXPENDITURES [Gnoss IN. BILLIONS) -- STRATEGIC GOALS STRATEGICOBJECTWE [5 IN. BILLIDNSI FY 2011 FY2010 Transform our Energy Deploy the technologies we. have 13.1 13.1 . 3.7 Systems Discover the new. solutions we need .. . .. 4.0 4.0 .. . . . 3.0 Lead the National conversation on energy . . . 0Extend our knowledge of the natural world 3.6 3.5 3.1 The Soence and . . . Deliver new technologies to advance our 1.8 1.4 1.2 En ineerin Enter rise Sustain a world?leading technical workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . - Support the US. nuclear stockpile and future military needs .10 6.2 5.1 Reduceglobal nuclear dangers 2.4 1.8 Apply. our capabilities. for. other critical national security Secure Our Nation missions . . . . .. 11.2 Support responsible. civilian nuclear power. development and fuel cycle management 0.2 0.2 0.3 Complete. environmental remediation of our legacy and activesites 8.6 a Budgetary Expenditures Incurred is synonymous with delivered orders - amounts accrued or paidfor services performed, goods and tangible property received, or for programs for which no current service is required such as loans. Budgetary Expenditures are obtained from the Budgetary Standard General Ledger and are reportedfrecorded based on budgetary accounting rules. includes capital expenditures but excludes such items. as depreciation, changes in unfunded liability. estimates, and certainother non fund costs. and allocations ofDep artm en Administration activities. . Program Costs {Gross} are taken Jfrom the Department?s Consolidated Statements Cost. 22 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy Analysis of Systems, Controls and Legal Compliance Management Assurances. The Department's management is responsible for establishing and maintaining an effective system of internal controls to meet the objectives ofthe Federal Managers? Financial Integrity Act To support management?s responsibilities, the Department is required to perform an evaluation of management and financial system internal controls as required by Sections II and IV. res pectively, of FMFIA. OMB Circular A-123, Management's Responsibilityfor internal Control. and internal controls over financial reporting as required by Appendix A ofthe Circular. The following assurances are made based on the results of these evaluations, which are reflected in reports and representations completed by senior accountable managers within the Department. The Department has completed its evaluation ofmanagement and financial system internal controls. Based on that assessment, as of September 30, 2011, the Department can provide reasonable assurance that management internal controls over the effectiveness and efficiency of operations and compliance with applicable laws and regulations were operating effectively with no material weaknesses found in their design or operation. Evaluation results also indicated that the Department?s financial systems generally conform to governmental financial system requirements and substantially comply with requirements of the Fed eral Financial Management Improvement Act In addition, the Department is providing reasonable assurance that internal controls over financial reporting as oflune 30, 2011. were working effectively and no material weaknesses were identified in the design or operation of the speci?c controls over ?nancial reporting. This assessment and evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, includes safegua rding assets and compliance with applicable laws and regulations, as required by Appendix A of OMB Circular and Departmental requirements. The evaluation required an assessment of both entity and process controls. The Department is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control [including safeguarding of assets and compliance with applicable laws and regulations] over all of the Department's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding. Controls have been established to ensure that the following critical objectives are met: ARRA funding has been expended for the intended purpoSes and in accordance with internal and external guidance; reported results regarding the expenditures offunds and the outcomes achieved are accurate and veri?able; and key processes affecting the execution of ARRA funding have been evaluated and are deemed effective. Although the Department has no material weaknesses to report as a result of the above internal control evaluations, the Department is continuing its work to address Management Priorities. These Management Priorities represent the most important strategic management issues facing the Department in accomplishing its mission now and in the coming years. a, Steven Chu November '14, 2011 Federal Managers? Financial Integrity Act The Federal Managers? Financial Integrity Act of 1982 requires thatagencies establish internal controls and financial systems to provide reasonable assurance that the integrity of Federal programs and operations is protected. Furthermore, it requires that the head of the agency provide an annual assurance statement on whether the agency has met this requirement and whether any material weaknesses exist. In response to the FMFIA, the Department developed an internal control program which holds managers accountable for the performance, productivity, operations and integrity of their programs through the use ofinternal controls. Annually. senior managers at the Department are responsible for evaluating the adequacy ofthe internal controls surrounding their activities and determining whether they conform to the principles and standards established by the OMB and the Government Accountability Of?ce The results of these evaluations and other senior management information are used to determine whether there are any internal control problems to be reported as material weaknesses. The Departmental Internal Control and Audit Review Council, the organization responsible for oversight of the Internal Control Program, makes the final assessment and decision for the Department. The Department?s evaluation for FY 2011 identified no material weaknesses in the design or operation of its management and financial system internal controls. OMB Circular A-123, Appendix A Internal control requirements for publicly traded companies contained in the Sarbanes?Oxley Act paved the way for the Federal Government to also strengthen its internal control requirements. The issuance of Appendix A ofOile Circular A-123 provides specific requirements to agencies for conducting management's assessment of internal control over ?nancial reporting. The Department's evaluation for FY 2011 did not identify any material weaknesses as of, or subsequent to, June 30, 2011. Federal. Financial Management Improvement Act The Federal. Financial. Management Improvement Act of 1996 was designed to improve Federal ?nancial management and reporting by requiring that ?nancial management systems comply substantially with three requirements: Federal financial management system requirements: applicable Federal accounting standards: and the United States Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. Furthermore, the Act requires independent auditors to US. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2m 1 23 ANALYSIS. ASSURANCES AND PRIORITIES report on agency compliance with the three stated requirements as part of?nancia] statement audit reports. The Department has evaluated its financial management systems and has determined that they substantially comply with Federal financial management systems requirements, applicable Federal accounting standards and the 0.3. Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. American Recovery and Reinvestment. Act The Recovery Act was signed into law to jumpstart our economy, create or save millions ofjobs and put a down payment on addressing long-neglected challenges so our country can thrive in the 21 st century. The Recovery Act is an extraordinary response to a crisis unlike any since the Management Priorities he Department carries out multiple complex and highly diverse missions. Although the Department is continually striving to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its programs and operations, there are some specific areas that merit a higher level of focus and attention. These areas often require long-term strategies for ensuring stable operations and represent the most daunting Management Priorities the Department faces in accomplishing its mission. The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 requires that, annually, the Inspector General prepare a statement summarising what they consider to be the most serious management and performance challenges facing the Department. These challenges are included in the Other Accompanying Information section of this report. Similarly, in FY 2011 the GAO identified five major management challenges and program risks to be addressed by the Department. The Department, after considering all critical activities within the agency and those areas identified by the IG and GAO, has identified nine Management Priorities that represent the most important strategic management issues facing the Department now and in the coming years. CONTRACT AND PROJECT ADMINISTRATION Key Challenges: Congress requested that the Department take corrective action to be removed from the GAO High- Risk List for inadequate contract and project oversight and management. DOE has been on this list since its inception in 1990. Leadership commitment from the Department?s senior management and support from CAD and OMB is required to shape the necessary broad ranging policy and cultural changes while preventing adverse impact to the Department?s mission. Departmental Initiatives: The Department completed a comprehensive Root Cause Analysis of contract and Great Depression, and includes measures to modernize our Nation's infrastructure, enhance energy independence, expand educational opportunities, preserve and improve affordable health care, provide tax relief and protect those in greatest need. The Department has established and maintained adequate internal controls to ensure that: Recovery Act funding has been expended for the intended purposes and in accordance with internal and external guidance: reported results regarding the expenditure of Recovery Act funds and the outcomes achieved are accurate and verifiable; and key processes impacting the execution of Recovery Act funding have been evaluated and are deemed effective. project management deficiencies in April 2008 and approved a Corrective Action Plan in July 2008. The CAP addressed the root causes by identifying solutions that provide demonstrable results. Based on progress over the past several years, especially in Office of Science, GAO in 2009 narrowed the scope ofthe high-risk designation to include only DDE's National Nuclear Security Administration and Office of Environmental Management. GAO issued a scorecard with five criteria for removing all DOE programs from the High?Risk List. GAO acknowledges that the Department has met three ofthese criteria through its efforts to address contract and project management weaknesses including: 1] demonstrating strong commitment and top leadership support; 2} developing a corrective action plan that identifies effective solutions: and 3] demonstrating progress in implementing corrective measures. DOE will continue to address the remaining two criteria: having the capacity [people and resources) to resolve the problems and monitoring and independently validating the effectiveness and sustainability of corrective measures. Nearly all corrective actions identified in the CAP were completed in FY 2010. As a result, the Department made sustainable improvements to contract and project management and generated measurable results. In short, the Department strengthened front?end planning by implementing Project Definition Rating Index and Technology Readiness Assessment Tools, developed Program speci?c staffing models based on industry and government best practices to provide appropriate project and contract oversight during planning and execution phases, and adopted a policy to require Project Peer Reviews [a best practice adopted from the Of?ce of Science] be conducted at least once per year for large or high visibility projects and more frequently for the most complex projects or those experiencing performance challenges. A web-enabled replacement Project Assessment and Reporting System that provides transparent, consistent and quality project performance 24 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 201 ?1 0.5. Department of EnErgy ANALYSIS. ASSURANCES AND, PRIORITIES data [including contractor Earned Tv?alue Management System data} to all levels of field and Headquarters? management was developed and deployed. A revision to project management directive, DOE Order 413.313, has been issued. GAO acknowledged in its most recent High-Risk List update [February 2011} that the steps DOE has taken are very important, but have not yet consistently improved contract and management performance in EM and NSA. In its efforts to improve contract and project oversight, in FY 2011 the Department transitioned from closeout to an increased focus on Contract and Project Management Reform. In the 1st quarter of FY 2011, the Department?s Operations. Management Council. identified contract and project management as a key initiative of the Department?s Management Excellence agenda. The initiative was formally kicked offin December 2010 by a Deputy Secretary-hosted Contract and Project Management Summit that brought together Federal Project Directors, program officials, Heads of Contracting Activity, Procurement Directors, HQ staff, as well as Energy Facility Contractor Group and National Laboratory Directors Council representatives. The Summit focused on six key areas Project and Contract Alignment and Change Control; Contract Administration including surveillance, monitoring and oversight; ProgramfProject Prioritization and Funding Alignment; Roles and Responsibilities of Contracting Officers and Contracting Officer Representatives; Accountability Aligning Incentives; and, Adequate Project and Contract Management Staffing. Following the Summit, cross? functional teams were established for each area to develop and implement solutions. The teams are reporting progress to the Contract and Project Management Improvement Executive Steering Committee on a basis. Most are expected to complete their efforts by the end of FY 2012. Continuous improvement opportunities that result from the RCAXCAP and the CPMI teams will be implemented to further enhance the Department?s efforts to consistently deliver capital asset projects within scope, cost and schedule commitments. Implementation ofthe RCAXCAP corrective measures will be monitored and appropriate project success performance metrics will be reported to Departmental leadership, OMB and GAO. In addition, DOE will report on its improvement status to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees in the annual budget request. ACQUISITION PROCESS MANAGEMENT Key Challenges: The Department is the largest civilian contracting agency in the Federal Government and spends approximately 80% of the appropriated funds on contracts to operate its scientific laboratories, engineering and production facilities, and environmental restoration sites, The Department has been challenged, both externally and internally, to improve the efficiency and efficacy of the procurement process. Most recently, a july 2009 report by the National Academy of Public Administration identified systemic and other areas where improvements could he madeto facilitate DOE'sacquisition processes. In addition, the DOE Inspector General has identi?ed contract management as a management challenge and has issued two additional reports on DOE's acquisition workforce. DOE, through its own internal assessments, has determined that it needs to improve the quality ofboth its procurement systems across the complex and the procurement transactions which they produce. In response to the key challenges, DOE conducted a root cause analysis and developed a corrective action plan that will, over time, help the Department?s major projects meet their budget, schedule and scope requirements, Vulnerabilities will be substantially mitigated by the initiatives implemented during FY 2010. Departmental Initiatives: Significant progress has been made in addressing this Management Priority. The majority of corrective measures has been completed and will improve the way contracts are awarded and administered. In FY 2010, the Of?ce of Procurement and Assistance Management implemented a concept of operations for the Source Evaluation Board Secretariat Function and further matured its source selection knowledge management initiatives. DPAM also worked with EM to develop an aggressive portfolio of initiatives that will build on, and further mature, the re-engineering of the competitive contracting process with a focus on acquisition planning and proposal evaluations, and strengthening field contracting operational effectiveness. In concert with the initiatives championed by the Office of Engineering and Construction Management, specific areas offocus include: I Strengthening front-end planning [requirements definition). Augmenting project staffing levels. Strengthening risk management strategies. Improving cost estimating capability. Strengthening Federal oversight, including improving integration ofacquisition strategies, acquisition plans and project plans. 0 Enhancing integrated contract teams through Deep Dive Reviews, Program Reviews and other oversight actions along with close interaction between Program and Office ofProcurement acquisition officials. Highlights of significant activities include developing Departmental guidance on Project Front?End Planning and publishing a Technical Readiness Assessment Guide. OPAM and EM also collaborated in the development ofa stand-alone course for managing changes which is expected to significantly improve our post-award management function, In FY11, eight courses were held at various DOE sites. Feedback on the course from attendees has been overwhelmingly positive. In addition, DPAM is continuing to support Government-wide initiatives aimed at building and strengthening the acquisition workforce. ability to obligate approximately $34.6 billion in ARRA funding under an extremely compressed timeframe US. Department of" Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 25 ANALYSIS. ASSURANCES AND PRIORITIES demonstrates the success ofthe initiatives undertaken in FY 2010. DDE's acquisition and program workforce was quickly mobilized and worked in a truly collaborative manner making this massive obligation possible. In some instances, contracting officials were co?located with program officials in order to facilitate the process and resulting awards. The Department is looking at more widespread adoption ofco-location of contracting officials within programs where appropriate. DOE also undertook a number of industry outreach efforts to educate the public on the competitive award process, making the entire process more efficient. These lessons learned will be incorporated into all facets of DOE acquisition. DPAM of?cials are interacting with programs and their acquisition officials. during the acquisition concept phase to help acquisition officials identify their requirements and provide advice and recommendations. engagement from the beginning of each major acquisition and its continued assistance throughout the entire acquisition cycle is expected to significantly. enhance the success ofthe program and facilitate more timely awards and post-award management. SECU RITY Key Challenges: The Department works to ensure the security of national assets entrusted to the DOE while minimizing the impact on productivity and achievement of the Department's mission objectives. Departmental Initiatives: In FY 2011, Departmental elements continued the security reform efforts initiated in FY 2009 to maintain high standards ofsafeguards and security ofnational assets entrusted to the Department thus contributing to national security and safety of the public while reducing regulatory burden. Through leadership, worker and stakeholder engagement. and operational experience, the Department continued to refine its safeguards and security policies and focus its oversight programs. The Department continued to implement an aggressive outreach program to establish and strengthen lines ofcommunication, seek feedback, and resolve areas ofinterest and concern. Such activities included conducting focus group meetings led by the foice of Health, Safety and Security with participation from DOE program offices, worker trade unions, professional associations and other stakeholders. DOE program and staffoffices continued reviewing safeguards and security programs and requirements to validate the. technical basis and soundness of Department security measures in order to shift towards clear, concise, performance?based requirements without being overly prescriptive or redundant, and to maximize the use ofconsensus standards. Independent oversight activities. were further focused on sites and laboratories that maintain significant levels. of. classified materials and/or. information and demonstrate poor performance. Additionally, the Department continued to reduce the overall security footprint and meet the Graded Security Protection P) Policy by consolidating and improving special nuclear material storage facilities; eliminating or releasing for general use facilities that previously required safeguarding; restructuring security management systems; deploying security technologies; implementing the tactical response force doctrine where needed; and modifying contractual incentives and performance metrics to enhance the Department's overall effectiveness. In FY. 2012, the Department will work towards institutionalizing the safeguards and security reforms implemented in FY 2010 and FY 2011 through the following initiatives: 0 Maximize the use of national and international consensus standards where applicable and ensure DCIE requirements are. performance-based, meaningful, clear and concise without being overly prescriptive or redundant Streamline the access authorization process and implement other efficiencies. while continuing to provide oversight and guidance for the issuance of credentials that support both physical and logical access under the DOE Identity Credentialing and Access Management program [The DOE effort, which maps to the Federal ICAM initiative, implements Homeland Security Presidential Directive?12 as well as other information technology-based initiatives]; 0 Continue implementing the requirements of the GSP Policy by updating risk acceptance and vulnerability assessment processes, deploying cost-effective security technologies in coordination with implementing the tactical response force doctrine where appropriate, and consolidating and improving nuclear material storage facilities; 0 Collectively review and assess key elements of the US. Nuclear Weapons. Physical Security. Program with the Department of Defense to harmonize security practices leading to a common basis for protection ofnuclear weapons and material at the national level, and allow better communication and transparency with key decision makers in Congress and the Executive Branch; 0 Maintain effective levels of security expertise throughout the Department by providing security training and professional development programs through the National Training Center; 0 Foster improvements. to security performance by clarifying roles and responsibilities for Federal and contractor line management; and I Continue the conduct of effective and transparent safeguards and security self?assessment, independent oversight, and enforcement programs to. maintain stakeholder and public confidence. ENVIRON MENTAL Key Challenges; Within the Department, EM's mission is to clean up the environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production and nuclear energy research. Fifty years of conducting these activities produced unique, technically complex adverse environmental effects, which must be remediated, frequently under the most hazardous of 26. Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011.. 0.5.. Department of Energy ANALYSIS. ASSURANCES AND PRIORITIES. conditions, and which will. require billions. of dollars a year for several more decades. Technical and programmatic risks and associated uncertainties are an inherent part of such complex cleanup projects, which can last for decades and often require first- of-a-kind solutions. Also, cleanup work at most sites is governed by one or more regulatory agreements or orders that establish the scope ofwork to be performed at a given site and the dates by which specific cleanup milestones must be achieved. Compliance with these agreements and orders is the major cost driver for the EM program. In some, cases, regulatory milestones were developed with. existing available information recognizing that further characterization was needed, whether for the composition ofwaste or the nature and extent of environmental contamination. With these additional data and further risk analyses, revised milestones may lead to accelerated risk reduction and human health and environment protection balanced with cost effectiveness. . In addition to being responsible for the cleanup of the legacy of the Manhattan Project and the Cold War, the Department has a backlog ofexcess facilities, materials and wastes requiring cleanup. EM has established a procedure to. integrate the remediation and disposition. ofthese environmental liabilities into its existing program. Departmental Initiatives: in FY 2012, the Department will continue its environmental cleanup mission with the following ongoing initiatives: 0 Specific cleanup actions can be re?sequenced to clean up higher risk waste and environmental contamination sooner. Therefore, EM has been reviewing its cleanup agreements with regulators to identify actions that can accelerate risk reduction sooner and in a morecost- effective manner. 0 To meet DDE's strategic goals for improving project and contract management performance, EM is implementing several initiatives, as follows: 0 EM has partnered with national laboratories, industry, academia, and the US. Army Corps of Engineers to ensure the best scientific and engineering resources are used, so that the selected technologies and the design and construction approaches will help reduce risk, lower cost, and accelerate project completion. 0 EM is expanding the use of independent contract and project reviews, construction project reviews, peer reviews, and external independent reviews to keep contracts and projects aligned and on track. EM is also conducting veri?cation and validation reviews to ensure that performance data is credible and reliable. EM continues to strengthen the. integrationof acquisition and project management processes so that contract statements of work and deliverables are based on clear project requirements and robust front-end planning and risk analysis; nuclear safety requirements areaddressed early; and modifications to the contract and project baseline are managed through strict and timely change control processes. 0 EM has completed restructuring of the EM cleanup projects into smaller, more definitive capital projects and non-capital operations activities. in addition to adhering to DOE Order 413.33. for planning and execution ofcapital assets, EM will follow the same disciplined principles for managing the non-capital asset operations activities, establishing approval authorities, performance goals and metrics, operations project director. designation, and change control procedures. 0- EM is currently implementing partnering agreements for major contracts, to create win-win scenarios where both the Federal staffand contractor staff understand and respect the rules of engagement and build better business relationships. Also, EM is working to build, stronger, relationships with oversight organizations to improve communications and demonstrate transparency and accountability in EMS contract and project management. in 2008, the Office ofScience the Office ofNuclear Energy and NSA nominated for possible transfer to EM approximately 340 excess facilities, materials, and wastes no longer needed for Departmental missions. To address the excess liabilities, EM conducts a comprehensive evaluation process to determine if they are suitable for transfer to EM from other Departmental organizations. When EM determines that nominated facilities, materials, andfor wastes satisfy transfer criteria, those liabilities enter the EM program, but only when funding is available toaddress them. Until funding becomes available, the current owners NE and. retain, ownership, and are responsible for any associated surveillance and maintenance [58an costs. Inaddition, for excess. facilities, the Department's Facilities information Management System shall continue to identify SC, NE and NNSA as the current owners of the excess liabilities. Lastly, during the last two years, using ARRA funding, EM has been able to accelerate the demolition and cleanup of T2 excess liabilities, helping to shrink the EM footprint and lower the Department?s overall environmental liability. DOE has developed a planning process that analyzes life?cycle cost profiles for discrete scope elements to inform optimum allocation of resources across the complex and to identify and accommodate additional cleanupscope. As part ofthis process,_alternative US. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2m 1 27 ANALYSIS. ASSURANCES AND PRIORITIES approaches that maximize risk reduction and cost savings are being identi?ed and evaluated. NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL Key Challenges: The Department ofEnergy is directed by the amended Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to manage and dispose of the nation?s commercial and defense high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel in a manner that protects public health, safetyand the. environment. The NWPA authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts with commercial nuclear utilities and commercial research reactor operators that own and generate spent nuclear fuel. In return for the 1 mill per kilowatt-hour fee payment by utilities into the Nuclear Waste Fund, the government was to begin disposing of their spent nuclear fuel starting in 1998. As of September 2011, 76 lawsuits had been filed by utilities to. recover claimed damages resulting from the. delay. The Department oqustice has entered into 23 settlements. To date, approximately $1.35 billion in claims have been paid under these settlements, with contract holders continuing to submit annual claims for additional costs. Additional annual payments will be made until the government has fulfilled its spent fuel acceptance obligations. The Department of. Energy reviews the. claims and provides recommendations for approval to the Department ofJustice . On March 7, 2011, noti?ed opposing counsel in the pending spent nuclear fuel cases ofthe terms and conditions under which 00] would be willing to settle those cases, referred to below as "New Settlements?. The terms and conditions are signi?cantly. different from those contained. in. the pre? 201 1 settlements. While there are numerous differences between the pre-2011 and New Settlements, the. major difference is the use ofthe SNF acceptance rate published in the 190? Draft Mission Plan to establish the government?s liability under these settlements, i.e. a 900 MTU annual acceptance rate under the pre-201 1 settlements versusa 3000 MTU annual. acceptance rate under the New Settlements. The number ofNew Settlements made in FY 2011, coupled with the signi?cantly higher spent nuclear fuel acceptance rate in those settlements, after deducting amounts paid by the Treasury [udgment Fund, resulted in a net increase in the Department?s spent nuclear fuel litigation liability of$3.6 billion from FY. 2010.. Staff from the. Department of. Energy continue to be the lead. government witnesses for the remaining unsettled cases being tried and continue to manage the Nuclear Waste Fund which has a balance of approximately $26.7 billion. Yucca Mountain. is not a workable. option and the. Department terminated the Of?ce ofCivilian Radioactive. Waste Management and the Yucca. Mountain repository project in FY 2010. The Department continues to support waste management and disposal and remains committed to meeting its obligations to manage and ultimately dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high?level radioactive waste. Departmental Initiatives: The Secretary, acting at the direction of the President, established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America?s Nuclear Future [the Commission] to conduct a comprehensive review of policies. for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel. cycle, including all alternatives for the storage. processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel, high- Ievel waste, and materials derived from nuclear activities. The Commission provided a draft report to the Secretary in Iuly.2011 and a final report will be issued in January. 2012. The draft report is posted on the Commission?s website, ov for public comment. The Commission established three subcommittees to address speci?c areas oftheir charter. The three subcommittees evaluated reactor and fuel cycle technology, transportation and storage ofused nuclear fuel, and disposal of used nuclear fuel and high-level waste. CYBER SECURITY Key Challenges: Despite overall improvements in the cybersecurity posture of the Department, cyber attacks are increasing in their level ofcomplexity, frequency and aggression. These persistent, pervasive areas of vulnerability must be addressed at an enterprise level to ensure that DOE information assets and systems are adequately protected from harm. During FY 201 1, the Of?ce of the Chief Information Of?cer made good progress towards institutionalizing a Departmental risk? based approach to cybersecurity, including the issuance of DOE Order 205.13, which codi?es the governance structure and risk-managed implementation and measurement. In the Order, the responsibility for de?ning the risk pro?le and implementation requirements for Departmental operating units falls to the Under Secretary-level organizations, which are grouped for the. sake ofcybersecurity as Senior DOE Management The SDM organizations are also responsible, through the deployment of contractor assurance systems for graded oversight of their operating units' cybersecurity programs based on risk and past performance. Rich data regarding the cybersecurity profile ofenterprise systems is currently collected by the CIO for external Federal reporting requirements. The. implementation. ofa continuous effort to and analyze this data. for use by senior Departmental management will provide key. internal stakeholders with a tool for enhancing their understanding of current trends regarding cybersecurity risks facing the DOE enterprise. Departmental Initiatives: Cybersecurity is vital to. protecting national security and securing America?s energy future. During FY 2011, the Department continued transformative. steps to. improve the management of cybersecurity. The Information Management Governance Council established by the Deputy Secretary over a year ago is thriving. Key to its success is the partnership between the CIO, the. Under Secretarics? IT/Cyber Security Representatives, and the Management and Operating contractors. 23 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 0.5. Department of Energy ANALYSIS. ASSURANCES AND PRIORITIES Long-term and continuous corrective action is required to effectively manage the evolving nature of cybersecurity threats. In FY. 20 1 to sustain. and. improve its. cybersecurity program the Department focused on a mission based risk management approach: developed and implemented the Cyber Security Strategic Plan; and developed and implemented the Cyber Security Architecture. Several efforts are underway in support ofthe tasks mentioned above. A new cyber. directive, DOE 0. 205.13,. Cyber Security Management, was signed by the Deputy Secretary on May 16, 2011. The order clarifies and codifies DDE's approach for risk management. A Memorandum ofUnderstanding between. DOE and the Department of Homeland Security was developed to establish a mutually acceptable framework for. the implementation of OMB and DHS cybersecurity. memoranda. It defines the terms for how DOE and DHS will. engage. in. cooperative. coordination. for cybersecurity. program implementation, monitoring, and oversight. In addition, the CIDs of DOE, including NNSA, and signed an MDU that establishes a framework to protect DDEXNNSA and program information from unauthorized disclosure and enables. a. process. to assess the damage from suspected compromises ofinformation systems. containing critical. unclassified. information. It also establishes the framework to forge a collaborative environment for sharing threat and vulnerability information between DOE and to improve protection of US. controlled unclassified information. To further the Departmental goal of focusing on and supporting a mission-based, risk management approach as well. as to. provide. consistent, complex-wide. training to. key. cybersecurity personal, the CID initiated a critical project initiative. to. develop. and. implement Authorizing Official Designated Representative Role-Based Training for Federal employees. Dne ofthe primary objectives of this course is to describe Risk Management Approach as de?ned in DOE 0 205.1]3, as well as other national guidance such as the NIST Risk Management Framework. Additionally, the process of developing the next prioritized competency module, Security Risk Management has started and can be applied to several key cyber role core competency training suites. The Cyber Security Strategic Plan was developed and integrated into an CID Strategic plan. And ?nally, a Notional Cyber Security Management Architecture Framework was established that includes DOE Cyber Security Principles, DOE Cyber Security Objectives, and a diagram that presents a view of meta?level. cybersecurity. program architecture driven by the RMA. HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT Key Challenges: The Department requires a highly technical and specialized workforce to accomplish its scientific and technological missions. The ongoing challenge is to recruit, maintain and develop a capable and flexible workforce. in. the face. of. numerous. barriers, including increased competition for individuals with the needed technical knowledge and broad competency set and the continuous knowledge and skill drain from retirements and other sources ofattrition. Departmental Initiatives: In FY 2011, the Chief Human Capital. Officer. worked. closely with. the. newly appointed Associate Deputy Secretary to achieve targeted outcomes with respect to the Department?s Strategic IGoal to establish an operational and adaptable framework that combines the best wisdom ofall Department stakeholders. to. maximize mission success. The CHCD is directly accountable for 11 Departmental effectiveness. and performance. measures. and is using metrics to monitor progress and make course corrections and newly developed and implemented tracking and reporting mechanisms to continually monitor progress towards goals. In FY 2011, the Department achieved a number. ofHuman Capital. Management successes, including: 0 Establishing a Disability Employment Program and I.r'eterans. Employment Initiative. to increase. the employment of persons with disabilities and veterans in the Department. DOE submitted operational plans to the Office of Personnel Management for both initiatives that outline the. scope, goals, and objectives. of the. programs, encompassing recruitment, training, workers? compensation and reasonable accommodation. DOE also partnered with the Department of Labor to offer training to hiring managers and human resources professionals on the use of Schedule A hiring authority. As a result, the. Department is on track to. meet its current hiring goals. 0 Leading the Department?s efforts to achieve the President's Hiring Reform Initiatives by reducing the time?to?hire for General Schedule and equivalent positions during FY 2011 from 174 to 101 days with over 1,200 hiring actions. DOE was featured by the CHICO Council?s CHCD Academy and the Partnership for Public Service as a model for other agencies on successful hiring reform strategies and emerging practices. 0. Launching new recruitment initiatives designed to unify the Department's corporate identity and attract diverse talent to DOE. These strategies included expanding the Student Ambassador?s Program on college campuses; deploying a new DOE branding tagline "Only to internal and external constituencies; enhancing the jobs Dne Portal website; holding online job fairs and recruitment events; and launching ?The Intern Experience,? the. first DDE blog dedicated to enabling student employees and entry-level professionals with the capacity to share US. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 29 experiences, professional tips and advice and to feature the exciting work being performed by these employees across the country. Leading the Department?s efforts to improve workforce development through the creation of an. Executive. Leadership Learning Series; establishing the Leaders as Teachers Program, a new Knowledge Management strategy designed to engage. senior DOE leaders as subject matter experts, teachers, speakers and curriculum developers. to capture, distribute. and. repurpose intellectual knowledge within the DOE workforce; implementing the first phase ofthe DOE University Framework to improve workforce development, leverage best practices, enable enhanced technologies, implement corporate standards and improve management oftraining costs, products and services: implementing a new DOE mentoring Program to include. 16 mentoring events with 98 mentees and 88 mentors; and mandating the increased use of individual Development Plans Increasing the use ofIDPs [by nearly 48% during FY 2811} enables Department Elements an improved capability. to accurately assess the learning needs of the organization and more effectively plan for the costs associated with staff development, while. also identifyng skill gaps in the workforce that may require the recruitment of new talent. Partnering with the Office of Personnel Management to co?chair the multi-agency workgroup formed by OPM Director john Berry to develop. a single performance. management model for GS employees throughout the Federal Government and to lead the development of HR University The performance management model will focus on providing ongoing feedback and communication, establishing a clear and easy to understand process, and ensuring strategic alignment with agency mission. The HRU will improve the availability and cost effectiveness of delivering training to the. HR community across agencies. Developing and piloting an electronic. Performance Management System [el?erformance] to. improve the execution, efficiency and effectiveness ofthe Department?s performance management responsibilities and building upon the efforts to ?green? the human capital management workplace, through online. recruitment, Employee Self Service and. the electronic Official Personnel Folder. The system. will. roll out to a. majority ofthe Department at the beginning of FY 2812. Leading the Workforce. Management Review Board, which was formed. by the Associate Deputy Secretary to provide expertise and data modeling capability to assist Departmental. Elements in making corporate-level workforce ANALYSIS. ASSURANCES AND PRIORITIES decisions for both Federal employees and support service. contractors. This is. a critical. capability in light of the constrained budget environments expected for FY 2812 and beyond. The Department will continue to emphasize Management Excellence in FY12 through. the continuation of the initiatives mentioned above and other innovative Human Capital Management programs. . For instance, the Department is elevating the time?to?hire metric to High Priority Performance Goal. status for FY 2812/13. Specifically, the goal for FY 2812/13 is to reduce the agency's time-to-hire to 80 calendar days or less, including a target of 58. days or. less for. time-to-offer. SAFETY AND HEALTH Key Challenges: The Department works to maintain the safety and health. ofits workers and the public to. enhance. productivity and achieve its mission objectives. Departmental Initiatives: In FY 2811, Departmental elements continued the safety and health reform efforts initiated in FY 2889 to maintain high standards of health and safety for its workers and the public while reducing regulatory burden. Through leadership, worker and stakeholder engagement, and operational experience, the Department continued to refine its safety and health policies, focus its oversight programs, and align its enforcement activities. . The Department continued to implement an aggressive safety and health outreach program to establish and strengthen lines of communication, seek feedback and resolve areas of interest and concern. Such activities included conducting focus group meetings led by the Office of Health, Safety and Security with participation from DOE program offices, worker trade unions, professional associations and other stakeholders. DOE program and staffoffices continued reviewing safety and health programs and requirements to validate the technical basis and soundness of Department measures. . Where necessary, requirements. were amended to better support the Department?s overall mission objectives and management principles. The. Department also continued to strengthen oversight ofcapital projects, to include major nuclear design and construction projects and to ensure. that quality. assurance and safety and health. requirements are properly implemented in all project life- cycle phases. Independent oversight activities were further focused on operations involving higher hazards or poor performance. The. Department continued to. align its worker and nuclear safety enforcement programs with those of the Occupational. Safety. and. Health Administration and the Nuclear. Regulatory Commission to provide a more consistent regulatory environment to its contractor. base. . The Department also. continued. to implement Title IO Code of Federal Regulation Part 851, Worker Health. and Safety. Program, and the Departments Integrated Safety Management principles into all facets of work planning and execution, including work conducted under the. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy ANALYSIS. ASSURANCES AND PRIORITIES In FY. 2012, the Department will work towards institutionalizing the safety and health reforms implemented in FY 2010 and FY 2011 through the following initiatives: in Maximize the use of national and international consensus standards where applicable and ensure DOE requirements are performance-based, meaningful, clear and concise without being overly prescriptive or redundant; 0 Strengthen the implementation of Department safety and health?related programs, DOE Tv'oluntary Protection Program and Integrated Safety Management, through corporate assistance and awareness activities; 0 Maintain effective levels of safety and health expertise throughout the Department by providing safety training and professional development programs through the NationalTraining. Center; I Foster improvements to safety and health performance by clarifying and communicating rolesand. responsibilities for Federal and contractor line management; and Continue the conduct of effective and transparent safetyand. health self?assessment, independent oversight, and enforcement programs to maintain stakeholder and public confidence. RECOVERY ACT Key Challenges: Through ARRA, the Department of Energy. was appropriated $35.2 billion contract, grant and loan guarantee fundsand $6.5 billionin power marketing administration borrowing authority. DOE was originally appropriated billion funds, which was later reduced to $35.2 billion after $3.5 billion in rescissions and transfers from the loan program. The Department is also supporting Treasury in administering morethan. $15 billion in. tax grants for renewable-energy. generation and tax credits for clean?energy manufacturing..These ARRA funds represented a five?fold increase in the Applied Energy base budget and required the majority ofprogram offices to signi?cantly scale up. operations quickly. Moreover, DUE established a new program, ARPA-E. As a result the Department increased transparency. and accountability, improved ef?ciency in the procurement process, and. improved. collaboration. within DOE and with external stakeholders. Departmental Initiatives: Over the last two fiscal years, the Department has. undertaken the following initiatives to. meet the goals ofthe ARRA: Developed. a master plan that defined key deadlines: issuing notices of funding opportunities, application due, completion ofreview processes, announcements, NEPA reviews, contracts to be completed and projects to be started. I Developed an online financial database for ARRA work, accessible through the iPortal. This provides managers. with a consistent set ofinformation regarding the current status of programs aggregated. by agency. or program or at the level ofa particular project. lnformation related to obligations, payments and milestones is also available. Daily reports are generated and made available to the Department?s senior management and the Congress. I Specified the resources required to meet deadlines in the master plan. This highlighted the Department?s need for reviewers, environmental compliance specialists and procurement officers. DUE worked vigorously with partners and external stakeholders to bring in more resources to the Department. The additional resources created the capacity to deliver at scale. - Held regular r?tag up? meetings to identify critical. issues, assignstaffto resolve the issues and set a clear deadline for resolution. 0 Conducted Recovery Program Reviews to perform a "deep dive? into a speci?c Program Office's financial, operationaland impact metric progressin meeting targets. 0 Developed comprehensive risk management plans for. each program. Plans were supported by Inspector General?s preventive up-front audit, documenting each instance of waste, fraud and abuse that had occurred over the last decade in any program receiving funds. under ARRA. I Established call centers to help those applying for funding and,.if necessary, provided resources. to the. field to facilitate the application process. While the Department was successful in obligating ARRA funds, continued focus will remain on the following issues: a Ensuring ARRA funds are expended quickly and wisely to maximize job creation and meet energy goals. a Strengthening risk management practices as part of project oversight, including closing out ARRA related contracts on a timely basis and resolving post-award audits 0 Providing appropriate level ofresources for specific oversight and management through the end of ARRA projects. Changes From FY 2010 Management Priorities Following management review and discussion, the previous Management Priority of Stockpile. Stewardship has been removed from the FY 2011 list of Management Priorities. However, Stockpile Stewardship will continue. to be a long-term strategic priority of the Department and is discussed in the. Strategic. Planning and Program Performance section ofthis Report. It is the Department?s goal that the strategies to address these areas will also. help mitigate related 10 and GAO management challenges. To highlight how the Department?s strategies for mitigating its Management Priorities align with the IG and GAO challenge areas, the following table provides a crosswalk of the relationship 0.5. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 31. ANALYSIS. ASSURANCES AND PRIORITIES between the three. Please note that the IG and GAD did continue to receive appropriate management attention, identify areas that are not currently reported as management has not designated them as Management Management Priorities by the Department. While the Priorities. ongoing importance of those areas is recognized and they DOE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES CHALLENGE. AREAS FY 2011. GAD. CHALLENGE AREAS. Contract and Project Administration 5 Contract and Financial Assistance Award Resolve contract administration and Management 5 project management problems forlarge Acquisition Process Management 5. and C?mplex 5 Security D. Environmental Cleanup Environmental Cleanup Nuclear Waste Disposal Nuclear Waste Disposal Stockpile Stewardship Improve the safety. reliability and physical and information security for the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile Cyber Security 5 Cyber Security 8 Energy Supply. Enhance the development, management and protection of assets vital to the nation?s energy and national security Human Capital Management. Human Capital Management Address the human capital challenge of developing and retaining a skilled workforce capable of overseeing complex projects 8 Safety 8: Health 5 Sustain the relevance and effectiveness of nonproliferation efforts Recovery Act D. and Operational Ef?ciency 8: Cost Savings and . Mission Direct 5 Mission Support Employees of the Savannah River Site?s Area Operable Ilnil gather at the completed site. Recovery Act funds contributed to completion ofs?ile. 32 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy Financial Results A student from the University of Puerto Rico cleans solar panels to maximize energyr ef?ciency during the LLB. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon near the Washington Monument on the National Mall in Washington. .f are 1' . fr. 3" "r"i.lu y" i I I . Solar panels on the roof of the Department of Energy's Forresta] Building in Washington, D.C. 34 Agent}: Financia] Repurt Fiscal Year ZDH US. Department of Energy I am pleased that the public accounting firm KPMG LLP, serving of? as our independent auditor, has expressed an unqualified opinion on our financial statements for a fifth consecutive year. No material weaknesses in our internal controls were identified, and our financial systems conform to governmental standards and requirements. Our achievement is an important and successful measure of the integrity of our finances and governing internal controls. I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest appreciation for the continued dedication and professionalism of our financial management community to assure the financial integrity of our Department. As public servants. we shall continue to. work in ever. increasingly challenging. times, and we need to be prepared for that. However, I am both proud and comforted that I shall continue to have the opportunity to serve amongst you. Thank you. again, and good. luck for ?scal year 2012. fiend-FF.- Owen. F. Barwell November 14, 2011 US. Department of Energy Ageney Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 35 Consolidated and Combined Financial Statements Introduction to Principal Statements prepared to report the financial position and results of operations. of. the Department of Energy, pursuant to the requirements of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Government Management Reform Act of 1994, and the OMB Circular A-136, "Financial Reporting Requirements.? I I ?he Department?s ?nancial statements have been The responsibility for the integrity of the ?nancial information included in these statements rests with the management ofthe Department. The audit of the Department?s principal ?nancial statements was performed by an independent certified public accounting ?rm selected by the Department?s 1G. The auditors' report issued by the independent certified public accounting firm is included in this report. The following provides a briefdescription of the nature of each required financial statement. Consolidated Balance. Sheets The Consolidated Balance Sheets describe the assets. liabilities and net position components ofthe Department. Consolidated Statements of Net Cost. The Consolidated Statements of Net Cost summarize the Department?s operating costs by the strategic goals and objectives identified in the Department?s May 2011 Strategic Plan. All operating costs reported reflect full costs. including all direct and indirect costs. consumed by a program or responsibility segment. The full costs are reduced by earned revenues to arrive at net costs. Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position The Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position identify appropriated funds used as a financing source for goods, services or capital acquisitions. This statement presents the accounting events that caused changes in the net position. section of the Consolidated Balance Sheets from the beginning to the end of the reporting period. Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources The Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources identify the Department's budget authority. Budget authority is the authority that Federal law gives to agencies to incur ?nancial obligations that will eventually result in outlays or expenditures. Specific forms of budget authority that the Department receives are appropriations. borrowing authority. contract authority and spending authority from offsetting collections. The Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources provide information on budgetary resources available to the Department during the year and the status ofthose resources at the end ofthe year. Detail on the amounts shown in the Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources is included in the Required Supplementary Information section on the schedule Budgetary Resources by Major Account. Consolidated Statements of Custodial Activities The Consolidated Statements of Custodial Activities identify revenues collected by the Department on behalfof others. These revenues primarily result from power marketing administrations that sell power generated by hydroelectric facilities owned by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. 36 Agency Financial Report Fiscal US. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Principal Statements U.S. Department of Energy Consolidated Balance Sheets As ofSeptember 30, 2011 and 2010 ENUIE Intragovernmental Assets: Fund Balance with Treasury ?3 47320 5 55.249 Investments and Related Interest. Net 11 33.291 31,390 Accounts Receivable. Net [N'w'si' . . 807 4% Regulatory Assets . . . . . . . . 5,492 sass 6] Total lntragovernmenta] Assets 87,343 93,670 investments and Related Interest. Net ?01? 4? 81 [95 Accounts Receivable. Net 5] 3.893 4.018 Direct Loans and Lot-1n Guarantees, Nel mm?) 5.332 2.435 Inventory. Net; mm 3" Strategic Petroleum and Home Heating Oil Reserve 20.668 21.?00 Nuclear Materials 21.642 21.454 Other Invention530 513 General Property. Plant. and Equipment. Net mm 30.140 29.08? Regulatory Assets"M":1.406 4.605 Other Assets 3.341} 3.42l Total Assets 181,981 131,693 LIABILITIES: iNolc lntra govern mental Liabilities: Accounts Payable IS l04 Debt '21 [9.301 14.34? Deferred Revenuesand Other Credits mp? e4 36 Other Liabilities,- l?li 1.5l 1 1.281 Total Intragovernmental Liabilities 20,986 16,265 Accounts Payable 4.843 4.832 Loan Guarantee Liability 8ft 4 Debt Held by the Public '31 . . saris 5.915 Deferred Revenues and Other Credits 1329.495 Environmental, Cleanup and Disposal Liabilities It250.569 250.209 Pension and Other Actuarial Liabilities mm? 30.304 28.405 Obligations Under Capital Leases on? 540 Other Non-[litragovernmental Liabilities mm? 1.333 4.400 Contingencies and Commitments [9.135 15.481 Total Liabilities 371,421 355,552 NET. POSITION: Unexpended Appropriations Unexperltled Appropriations - Earmarked Funds mm? 21 13 Unexpendetl Appropriations - Other Funds 3?.3?41 40,981 Cumulative Results of Operations Cumulative Results ot'Opcl'ations Earmarked Funds {Hm {5.1183} [4.022) Cumulative Resultsof?perations - Other, Funds . . . . . {222{215,231} Total Net Position 15 {189.440} {173,854} Total Liabilities and Net Position {13 181,981 181,698 The accompanying notes are on integral port of these sto Elements. U.S. Department of" Energy Agency Financial Report FiSCal Year 2011 37 CONSOLIDATED AND. COMBINED. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS U.S. Department of Energy Consolidated Statements of Net Cost For the Years Ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 STRATEGIC GOALS: Transform Our Energy Systems Program Costs 17,315 1,924 Less: Earned Revenuesmm? 1? Hill 5} The Science and Engineering Enterprise Program Costs mm 3" 4,872 4,294 Less: Earned Revenuesmm? 1? (32) {22 Net Cost ofScienceand Engineering Enterprise . . . . . . 4,840 . . . . . . . . . . . 4,272 Secure Our Nation Program Costs ?Hm 16,698 l5,691 Less: Earned (375) NetCtistofSeeureOurNation Net Cost of Strategic Goals 30,073 21,485 OTHER PROGRAMS: Reimbursable Programs: Program Costs 4,257 4202 Less: Earned Revenues (4, HHS) (glean NetCostofReimbursablePrograms Other Programs mm? 23" Program Costs . . . . .326 . . . . . .806 Less: Earned Revenues {363) Net Cost ofOther Programs . . . . . . . . . . . 46443 Costs Applied to Reduction ol' Legacy Environmental Liabilities mm? [5 ?mi 1'1] {6,515} CostsNot Assignedmmg21.235 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,377 Net Cost ol?Uperalions 'Num 43,9923,323 The accompanying notes are an integral part ofthese statements. 33 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year ZDH US. Department of EnErgy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS U.S. Department of Energy Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position For the Years Ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 CUMULATIVE RESULTS OF. OPERATIONS: Beginning Balances Budgetary. Financing Sources: Appropriations Used Non?Exchange Revenue Donations and l-?ort?eitures of Cash Transfers Inf(()tit1 Without Reimbursement Other Financing Sources {Non?Exchange}: Donations and Forfeitures of Cash Transfers - InfiULIt} Without Reimbursement Impaled Financing From Costs Absorbed by Others 'Nm? Other Total. Financing Sources l?l 15] Net Cost of Operations Net Change Total Cumulative Results of Operations UNEXPENIJEI) APPROPRIATIONS: Beginning Balances Budgetary Financing St?iurces: Appropriations Received mm? m' Appropriations; Transferred - lnftOut) Other Adj usllnents Appropriations Used Total Budgetary Financing Sources Total Unexpended Appropriations Net Position CUMULATIVE RESULTS OF OPERATIONS: Beginning Balances Budgetary Financing Sources: Appropriations Used Non?Exchange Revenue Donations and liort?eitti res of Cash Transfers Witht?iut Reimbursement IOther Financing Sources [Non?Exchange}: Donations and I-?orfeitures ofCash Transfers In?Otit) Without Reimbursement 'Nm? lmputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others 'Nm? 25] Other Total Financing Sources Net Cost of Operations Net Change Total Cumulative Results of Operations APPROPRIATIONS: Beginning Balances Budgetary Financing Sources: Appropriations Received mm? Appropriations Transferred - InftOut} Other. Adjustments Used Total Budgetary Financing Sources Total Unexpended Appropriations Net Position Fr 2011 3 {4,622} 3 t2In.23lt 3 (220.35337.713 . . .. - s. . . .. 37.322 (23'(78] (T42) 1 5.235.23s {3.273} (Loss) {53; . . . (3,937) 3 41,631 . . . . (53} s. . . . . 3?,641 . 3.4m . . . .(47519(43.990) 95.. . . . ..{4sn - 3 {5,083} (222,119; - (227,202) is .4n.9si - 46,999 3 1 1 3 29.020 14 - 55 29.031 . . . . . . .3 3 (549) (549i . . . . . . . . . (37.114) {37.722} 3 3 (9.249) - (9.237) . . . - (5,062) (184,378) - (1:39.440) av 2011] 3 {4.688) moans; (234.95?) 3 3 33,062 3 is. 33.075 (331 5.492 5.494 438 . . . . . 3:903) . (432; . . . . . {901557 (432} 37,927 {491} (23.314) 432 (23.323) :5 as 14,038 - 14,104 (4,622) (216,231) - (220.353) 3 2n 3' 55.33? 55.4137 3 ll 3; 3 26.387 . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . 3 3 - (131 .t33,062133.035) 3. 18,406) - (8.403} is 415,981 - 46,999 - (173,354) The accompanying notes are an integral part nfrhese statements. US. Department of" Energy AgEnt?y Financial Report Fiseal Year 2011 39 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS U.S. Department of Energy Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources For the Years Ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 FY 2011 . BUDGETARY RESUURCES: Unobligated Balance. Brought Forward. October 1 11'? 9.946 3 3.3133 31; 27.262 3f:- Recoveries of Prior Year L'npaiti Obligations . . .15189 Budget Authority: Appropriations mm" Eli 29.947 55 - .?li 27.1165 5?5 - Borrowing Authority . . 1.048 . . . . 10.152 . . . . . 838 . . . . . lot] Contract Authorin 1.288 - 1.135 - Spending Authority from Ol'l'setting, Collections: Earned: Collected 3.671 1.752 . . . . . 8.343 . . . . . 94? Change in Receivables from Federal Sources 31 - 23 - Change in Untilled Customer Orders: Advances Received . . . . . .WithoutAdv-anee from Federal Sources . . . . 128{2'35} Subtotal 3?15 41.11361 5 12.461?) 515 37.433 5 332 Nonexpenditure Transfers. Net.Aetua1 . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . - Temporarin not Available Pursuant to Public Law [1.642] Permanently not Available {2.201} {37) (2.623) (189] Total Budgetaryr Resources 'Nc'n'lm 471.199 5 15.822 31; 62.982 5 3.663 STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES: I1:11-11igaliont-s Incurred: Direct 515. .. 29,219 11.229 33' 305 Exempt from Apportionment 3.?2l - 3.273 - Reimbursable 4.737 . . - . . . . . 4.296 . . . . . - Total Obligations Incurred ?if? :5 32.1577 5; 11.229 51' 53.0515 5 305 tin-obligated Balance: Apportioncd . . b.2110 . . . . 38 . . . . . 8.278 . . . . . 2 Exempt from Apportionment 29 - 53 - tJnobligated Balance not Available 2m 3.293 4.555 1.015 3.292 Total Status of Budgetary Resources 11'? 42.199 3 15.822 11; 62.982 3.668 IN UBLIGATED BALANCE: C}in gated Balance. Net: Unpaid Obligations. Brought Forward. {'Jctoher Eli 51.5112 55 (?1.143 315 41.897 55 11.194 Less: . Uncelleeted Customer Payments From Federal Sources. Brought Forward. October I {4.498} (2,093) (4.455) (2.868] Total Unpaid ()bligaled Balance. Net. October 1 31; 42.11114 55 4.1151] 32.442 5.326 Dbligalions Incurred 37.677 11.229 . . . . . 53,036 . . . . . 505 Less: Gross ('Jtutlays (47.411153) {5.117411 (42.434) (2.115?) Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations. Actual 131]) Change in Customer Payments from Federal Sources {51512) (43} 7'25 5.. .37.]15 9.613 47.01.14 4.051.} ()bligaled Balance. Net. I-ind of Period: Unpaid Obligations s. . . 41.616 . . . . 12.2.53 . . . . 51.502 . . . 6.143 Less: L'ncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources [4.5111] [2.655) (4.498} (2.1193) Total. Unpaid Obligated Balance. Net, End of Period 35. . . 32,115 . . . . 9.6[3 . . . . 42,004 . . . 4.050 NET Gross outlays it; . . 4140-5 . . . 5.024 . . 42.434 55 . . . . 2.1-5? Less: Oi'l'setting Collections [8.250] {1.252} 118.352} Less: Distributed {'Jt?fsetting Receipts mm? 25 ?ml 2r? {7.306} (3.3135) Net Outlays 'Nm ll" 1?1} 31.350 5 3.322 5 1.2211 The accompanying notes are an integral part tiftnese statements. 4D Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year ZDH US. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS U.S. Department of Energy Consolidated Statements of Custodial Activities For the Years Ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 SOURCES OF COLLECTIONS: Cash Collections: mm" Power Marketing Administrations . . . 819 . . . . . . .899 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 48 41 Total Cash Collections . . . . 86.940 Acerual Adjuslmenl. {20} 3) Total Custodial Revenue . . . 34? . 927 DISPOSITION OF REVENUE: Transferred to Others: Bureau of Reclamation {49 r47 Deparlnlenl of [he Treasury Gil-?ll (35 l} Army Corps of Engineers [63} (87] Others (6) - Deerea selilncrease} in Amounts [o be 'l?ranst?errerl 19 (IS NetCustodialAetivity The accompanying notes are an integral port ofthese Statements. US. Department of" Energy . Ageney Financial Report Fiscal Yearl?i?l ., 41 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Notes to the Consolidated and Combined Financial Statements 1. Summary of Signi?cant Accounting Policies A. BASIS DF PRESENTATION These consolidated and combined financial statements have been prepared to report the ?nancial position and results of operations of the United States Department of Energy [the Department]. The statements were prepared from the books and records of the Department in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applicable to federal entities. B. DESCRIPTION OF REPORTING The. Department isa cabinet level agency of. the Executive. Branch of the US. Government. The Department is not subject to federal, state, or local income taxes. The Department?s headquarters organizations are located in Washington, D. C. and Germantown, Maryland, and consist ofan executive. management structure that includes. the. Secretary; the Deputy Secretary; the Under Secretary of Energy; the. Under. Secretary for. Nuclear. SecurityfAdministrator for The National Nuclear Security Administration; the Under Secretary for Science: Secretarial stafforganizations; and program organizations that provide technical direction and support for the Department?s principal programmatic missions. The Department also includes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is an independent organization responsible for regulating the transmission and sale of natural gas for resale in interstate commerce and for regulating the transmission and wholesale of electricity in interstate commerce and the licensing power projects. The. Department has acomplex ?eld. structure comprised ofoperations offices, field offices, power marketing administrations [Bonneville Power Administration, Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and Western Area Power Administration]. laboratories, and other. facilities. .The majority. of. the Department?s environmental cleanup, energy research and development, and testing and production activities are carried out by major contractors. The contractors operate, maintain, or support the Department?s government-owned facilities on a day-to-day basis and provide other special work under the direction of the Department?s field organizations. The. Departmentindemnifies these. contractors against financial responsibility from nuclear accidents under the provisions of the Price-Anderson Act. These contractors have unique contractual relationships with the Department. In most cases, their charts of accounts and accounting systems are integrated with the Department?s accounting system through a home office- branch. of?ce. type. of arrangement. Additionally, the. Department is responsible for reimbursing the allowable costs ofcontractor contributions to certain defined benefit pension plans, as well as postretirement benefits such as medical care and life insurance, for the employees of these contractors. As a result, the Department's ?nancial statements re?ect not only the costs incurred by these contractors, but also include certain contractor assets employee advances and prepaid pension costs] and liabilities accounts payable, accrued expenses including payroll and benefits, and pension and other actuarial liabilities] that would not be reflected in the ?nancial statements. of. other. federal agencies. that do not have these unique contractual relationships. C. BASIS OF ACCOUNTING Transactions are recorded on an accrual accounting basis and budgetary basis. Under the accrual accounting basis, revenues are. recognized when. earned and expenses are. recognized when liabilities are incurred, without regard to receipt or. payment of cash. . Budgetaryaccounting facilitates compliance with legal constraints and controls over the use of federal funds. All material intradepartmental balances and transactions have been eliminated in the Consolidated Balance Sheets, Consolidated Statements of Net Cost, Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position, and Consolidated Statements of Custodial Activities. The. Combined Statements ofBudgetary Resources are prepared on a combined basis and do not include intradepartmental eliininations. Throughout these financial statements, assets, liabilities, earned revenue, and costs have been classified according tothe type of. entity. with whom the. transactions were. made. lntragovernmental assets and liabilities are those from or to. other. federal entities. lntragovernmental earned revenue represents collections or accruals of revenue from other federal entities, and lntragovernmental costs are payments or accruals to other federal entities. D. FUND BALANCE WITH TREASURY Funds with the Department ofthe Treasury [Treasury] primarily represent appropriated and revolving funds that are available to pay current liabilities and finance authorized purchases. Disbursements and receipts are processed by Treasury, and the Department?s records are reconciled with those ofTreasury [see Note E. INVESTMENTS AND RELATED INTEREST, NET All investments are reported at cost not ofamortized premiums and discounts as it is the Department?s intent to hold the investments to maturity. Premiums and discounts are amortized using the effective interest yield method [see Note 42 Agency Financial Report Fiscal YearZDl?l US. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS F. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, NET [ntragovernmental accounts receivables represent amounts due from other federal agencies and are considered to be fully collectible. The amoUnts due for non-intragovernmental [non-federal] receivables are stated net of an allowance for uncollectible accounts. The estimate ofthe allowance is based on past experience in the collection ofreceivables and an analysis ofthe outstanding balances [see Note G. DIRECT LOANS AND LOAN GUARANTEES The Department has two loans that were obligated and disbursed prior to fiscal year 1992, and are presented net ofan allowance for loss. All loans obligated after ?scal year 1992 are presented on a present value basis in compliance with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. The present value of the loans is revalued on an annual basis {see Note Interest expense on the Federal Financing Bank Debt is calculated in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-11, Sections 185.32 and 185.34 using the Credit Subsidy Calculator 2 Capitalized interest receivables on loans with FFB are reclassi?ed to principal outstanding on the capitalization date. H. INVENTORY, NET Stockpile materials are recorded at historical cost in accordance with Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 3, Accounting-for inventory and Related Property except for certain nuclear materials identi?ed as surplus or excess to the Department?s. These nuclear. materials are. recorded. at their net realizable value [see Note I. GENERAL PROPERTY, PLANT, AND EQUIPMENT, NET Property, plant. and equipment that are purchased, constructed, or fabricated in-house, including maior modifications or improvements, are capitalized at cost. The Department's property, plant, and equipment capitalization threshold is $50,000 except for the power marketing administrations and FERC, which use thresholds ranging from $5,000 to $50,000. The capitalization threshold for internal use software is $750,000, except for the PMAs and FERC, which use thresholds ranging from $5,000 to $150,000 [see Note Costs of construction are capitalized as construction work in process. Upon completion or beneficial occupancy or use, the cost is transferred to the appropriate property account. Property, plant, and equipment related to environmental management facilities storing and processing the Department?s environmental legacy wastes are not capitalized. Depreciation expense is generally computed using the straight-line method. The units of production method is used only in special cases where applicable, such as depreciating automotive equipment on a mileage basis and construction equipment on an hourly use basis. The ranges ofservice lives are generally as follows: Structures and Facilities 25 50 years Automated Data Processing Software 3 37 years Equipment 5 40 years Land rights for a specified period or 50 years, whichever is less I. LIABILITIES Liabilities represent amounts of monies or other resources likely to be paid by the Department as a result ofa transaction or event that has already occurred. However, no liability can be paid by the Department absent an authorized appropriation. Liabilities for which an appropriation has not been enacted are, therefore, classi?ed as not covered by budgetary resources [see and there is no certainty that the appropriations will be enacted. Also, liabilities ofthe Department that are not contract based can be abrogated by the government acting in its sovereign capacity. R. EARMARKED FUNDS Earmarked funds are financed by speci?cally identified revenues, often supplemented by other financing sources, which remain available overtime. These specifically identified revenues and other ?nancing sources are required by statute to be used for designated activities, bene?ts or purposes, and must be accounted for separately from the government?s general revenues [see Note 19]. L. ACCRUED ANNUAL, SICK, AND OTHER LEAVE Federal Employees: Federalemployees' annual leave. is accrued as it is earned, and the accrual is reduced annually for actual leave taken. Each year, the accrued annual leave balance is adjusted to reflect the latest pay rates. To the extent that current or prior year appropriations are not available to fund annual leave earned but not taken, funding will be obtained from future ?nancing sources. Sick leave and other types of non-vested leave are expensed as taken. Contractor Employees: The Department accrues annual leave for contractor employees. Unlike leave for federal employees, this is a funded liability rather than an unfunded liability. M. RETIREMENT PLANS Federal Employees: There are two primary retirement systems for federal employees. Employees hired prior to lanuary 1, 1984. may participate in the Civil Service Retirement System On January 1, 1984, the Federal Employees Retirement System went into effect pursuant to Public Law 99?335. Most employees hired after December 31, 1983, are automatically covered by FERS and Social Security. Employees hired prior to January 1, 1984?, elected to either join FERS and Social Security or remain in CSRS. A primary feature of FERS is that it offers a savings plan to which the Department automatically contributes one percent of pay and matches 0.5. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 43 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS any employee contribution up to an additional four percent of pay. For most employees hired since December 31, 1983, the Department also contributes the employer's matching share for Social Security. The Department does not report CSRS or FERS assets, accumulated plan benefits, or unfunded liabilities, if any, applicable to its employees. Reporting such amounts is the responsibility of the Office ofPersonnel Management The Department does report, as an imputed financing source [see Note 25] and a program expense, the difference between its contributions to federal employee pension and other retirement benefits and the estimated actuarial costs as computed by 0PM. The PMAs make additional annual contributions to Treasury to ensure that all postretirement benefit programs provided to their employees are fully funded and such costs are both recovered through rates and properly expensed. Contractor Employees: The Department is contractually responsible for reimbursing its major contractors who sponsor employee defined benefit pension plans for the costs ofcontractor employee retiree bene?ts because these are allowable costs under their contracts. Most of these contractors sponsor defined benefit pension plans under which these plans promise to pay employees specified bene?ts, such as a percentage ofthe final average pay for each year of service. The Department does not sponsor and is not the ?duciary of contractor employee defined benefit plans. Contractors are required to make contributions to their plans as required by the Internal Revenue Code, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act as amended, and Departmental direction. Employer contributions are calculated to ensure that plan assets are sufficient to provide for accrued benefits of contractor employees. The level ofcontributions is dependent on plan provisions and actuarial assumptions about the future, such as interest rates, employee turnover and mortality. age of retirement, and compensation increases. The Department's major contractors also sponsor postretirement benefits other than pensions consisting of predominantly postretirement health care benefits which are generally funded on a pay-as-you- go basis. Since the Department is responsible for the allowable costs of funding these contractor pension and PRB plans, it reports assets and liabilities for these plans [see Note 16]. N. NET COST OF OPERATIONS Program costs are summarized in the Consolidated Statements ofNet Cost by the strategic goals and objectives identified. in. the Department?s May. 2011 Strategic. Plan. Program costs re?ect full costs including all direct and indirect costs consumed by these strategic goals and objectives. Full costs are reduced by exchange [earned] revenues to arrive at net operating cost [see Notes 2D and 0. REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES The Department receives the majority ofthe funding needed to perform its mission through Congressional appropriations. These appropriations may be used, within statutory limits. for operating and capital expenditures. In addition to appropriations, other financing sources include exchange and non-exchange revenues and imputed financing sources. The Department also collects custodial revenues on bebalfof others. Exchange and Non-Exchange Revenues: In accordance with federal government accounting standards, the Department classifies revenues as either exchange [earned] or non-exchange. Exchange revenues are those that derive from transactions in which the government provides value to the public or another government entity at a price [see Note 21]. Non-exchange revenues derive from the government?s sovereign right to demand payment, including fines and penalties. Non-exchange revenues also include interest earned on investments funded from amounts remaining from the privatization of the US. Enrichment Corporation [see Note These revenues are not considered to reduce the cost of the Department?s operations and are reported on the Consoiida ted Statements of Changes in Net Position. Imputed Financing Sources: In certain instances, program costs ofthe Department are paid out of the funds appropriated to other federal agencies. For example, certain costs of retirement programs are paid by 0PM, and certain legal judgments against the Department are paid from the judgment Fund maintained by Treasury. When costs that are directly attributable to the Department's operations are paid by other agencies, the Department recognizes these amounts on the Consolidated Statements ofNet Cost. In addition, these amounts are recognized as imputed financing sources on the Consoiidated Statements ofChanges in Net Position [see Note 25]. Custodial Revenues: The Department collects certain revenues on behalfof others, which are designated as custodial revenues. The Department incurs virtually no costs to generate these revenues, nor can it use these revenues to finance its operations. The revenues are returned to Treasury and others and are reported on the Consoiidoted Statements ofCastodiai Activities [see P. USE OF ESTIMATES The preparation of financial statements requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Significant items subject to such estimates and assumptions include present value ofloan receivables, estimated lives of general property, plant and equipment, environmental cleanup and disposal liabilities. pension and other actuarial liabilities, contingencies and commitments, cost accruals, and managerial cost allocations. Actual results could differ from these estimates. 44 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2Di?l US. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Q. Certain fiscal year 2010 amounts have been reclassified to conform to the fiscal year 2011 presentation. R. TRANSFERS WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES The Department is a party to allocation transfers with other federal agencies as both a transferring [parent] entity and a receiving [child] entity. Allocation transfers are legal delegations by one department of its authority to obligate budget authority and outlay funds to another department. A separate fund account [allocation account] is created in the US. Treasury as a subset of the parent fund account for tracking and reporting purposes. All allocation transfers ofbalances are credited to this 2. Non-Entity Assets account, and subsequent obligations and outlays incurred by the child entity are charged to this allocation account as it executes the delegated activity on behalfof the parent entity. Generally, all ?nancial activity related to these allocation transfers budget authority, obligations. outlays] is reported in the ?nancial statements of the parent entity, from which the underlying legislative authority. appropriations and budget apportionments are derived. The Department allocates funds, as the parent, to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Department receives allocation transfers, as the child, from Treasury, the US. Department of Transportation and the Agency for international Development. Intragovernmental Naval Petroleum Reserve Deposit Fund mm 14' Investments. -. Petroleum. Pricing. Violation. Escrow. Fund. [Ham 4 ?mi LT Other Subtotal In vestl'1'1enls Petroleum Pricing Violation Escrow Fund mm? land Inventories Department of Defense stockpile oil [mm and IUther Total non-entity assets Total entity assets Total assets 323 .389 709 180.989 181,981 [81,698 Assets in the possession of the Department that are not available for its use are considered non-entity assets. NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE DEPOSIT FUND The balance of the Naval Petroleum Reserve Deposit Fund was returned to Treasury in FY 2011 upon ?nal settlement ofthe equity interest from the 1998 sale ofNaval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 Elk Hills [see Note 21}. PETROLEUM PRICING VIOLATION ESCROW FUND The Petroleum Pricing Violation Escrow Fund represents receipts collected as a result of agreements or court orders with individuals or firms that violated petroleum pricing and allocation regulations during the 19?Us and 19805. These receipts are invested in Treasury securities and certificates of deposit at minority-owned ?nancial institutions pending determination by the Department as to how to distribute the fund balance. The investments are liquidated, as needed, to make payments to claimants from this fund. US. Department of Energy Agency Financiai Report Fiscal Year 2011 45 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 3. Fund Balance with Treasury FY. 2011 Unoin gated budgetary resources Available 5,433 268 56] - 35 6,26? Unavailable 3,29l 4.55? - - Isa; 0in gated balance not yet disbursed Unpaid obligations mm" 3m 3.8, 2? 15:3?) 738 53,884 Uncollected customer payments from Federal sources (4,135) {2,930} (4 ll {1.155) Miscellaneous receipts. deposit I?unds and clearing accounts - - - 4B 43 Other adjustments Appropriations temporarily not available pursuant to law, and contract authority Collections temporarily not available pursuant to public law 4? - 47 Invested balances - payable to be transferred 34 34 Unavailable receipt accounts - - .913 - 913 Borrowing authority not yet converted to fund balance (12,384) ?2.384) Budgetary resources invested in Treasury securities Nuclear 1Waste Fund - - {34] - (34} Uranium Enrichment Dr.ch Fund - - (163} - [63) Po wer marketing administrations [291] 29 Total fund balance with Treasury 42,768 2,935 1,969 48 FY 2010 Unoin gated budgetary resources Available 33 28? 3152 Unavailable 4? 4.860 4,90? ()bligated balance not yet disbursed Unpaid obligations ?my? 47,968 3.330 so 57,645 Uneolleeted customer payments from Federal sources t4, 42) (2,4 3) {36) (15.591) Miscellaneous receipts, deposit funds and clearing accounts 366 366 Other adjustments Appropriations temporarily not available pursuant to law, and contract authority (I. 53] Collections temporarily not available pursuant to public law 7? - 13 20 Invested balances - payable - lobe transferred - 26 - - 2f} Unavailable receipt accounts 8W 87"9 Borrowing authority not yet converted to land balance - 95) - - (6, [95) Budgetary resources invested in 'l'reasury securities Nuclear Waste Fund - (68) {68) Uranium Enrichment Fund - [232] {232) Power marketing administrations - IQU) - - WU) US. Enrichment Corporation Fund H.567) Total fund, balance. with Treasury .. 51,633 . 2,485 .. .. . .366 .. 46 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US, Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 4. Investments and Related Interest, Net FY. 2011 Intragrwernmental Nuclear Waste Fund 515 48,61 1 [21,937] 54 26,728 3,415 35,143 Fund 4,372 171 44 4,587 174 4,761 11.5. Enrichment Corporation Fund 1,593 3 10 1,606 1 1,611"! Power marketing administrations 291 2 2 295 - 295 Petroleum Pricing Violation Escrow Fund mmSubtotal 54,942 Eli (2 [,761] 110 33,291 8,590 41,381 Petroleum Pricing Violation Escrow Fund mm 2' 131 181 18 1 Total investments and related interest, net 25 55,123 (21,761] 33,472 8,590 42,062 2010 Non-Marketable Nuclear Waste Fund 55 47.578 3i. (23,1156) 33 44 24,566 5.890 .. 30,456 Fund 4,761 164 50 4.975 239 5,214 US. Enrichment Corporation Fund 1.5157 8 26 1,1501 1,601 Power marketing administrations 1911 3 2 195 - 195 Petroleum Pricing Violation Escrow Fund mm? 3" 59 59 59 Subtotal 54,155 (22,331) .. 122 31,3915 15,129 37,525 Petroleum Pricing Violation Escrow Fund mu?: 2' 195 - 195 - 195 Total investments and related interest, net 54,359 Eli (22,831] 515 122 515 31,591 6,129 37,720 Pursuant to statutory authorizations, the Department invests monies in Treasury securities and commercial certificates of deposit that are secured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. .The Department's. investments primarily involve the Nuclear Waste Fund and the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund. Fees collected front. owners and generators ofspent nuclear fuel and high?level radioactive. waste. and fees collected from domestic utilities are deposited into the respective funds. Funds in excess of those needed to pay current program costs are invested in Treasury securities. Upon privatization ofthe U.S. Enrichment Corporation on luly.28,.1998,.DMB.and Treasury. designatedthe Department as successor to USEC for purposes of disposition ofbalances remaining in the USEC Fund. These funds are invested in Treasury securities. The federal government does not set aside assets to pay for. expenditures associatedwith. the funds. for which the Department holds Treasury securities. These Treasury securities are an asset to the Department and a liability to Treasury. Because the Department and Treasury are both parts of the federal government, these assets and liabilities offset each other from the standpoint ofthe federal government as a whole. For this reason, they do not represent an asset or. a liability in the US. Government- wide ?nancial statements. Treasury securities provide the Department with authority to draw upon the 1.1.5. Treasury to make expenditures, subject to available appropriations and OMB apportionments. When the Department requires redemption ofthese securities, the federal government finances those expenditures out of accumulated cash balances by raising taxes or other receipts, by borrowing from the public, repaying less debt, or by curtailing other expenditures. This is the same way the federal government finances all other expenditures. US. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 201i CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 5. Accounts Receivable, Net Eli St]? - St]? 496 496 Nuclear Waste Fund 1247 3.24? 3.4(17 3.40? Power marketing administrations 550 {40) 5 IO 528 l4 I) 48? Other (63} 136 I57 [33) 124 Subtotal 3,996 i I 0.3] 3,893 4,092 '74} 3 8 Total accounts receivable i 4,303 (103) 4,588 4,514 lntragovernmental accounts receivable primarily represent amounts due from other federal agencies for reimbursable. work performed pursuant to. the. Economy Act, Atomic Energy Act, and other statutory authority. Non-intragovernmental receivables primarily represent amounts due for NWF fees. NWF receivables are 6. Regulatory Assets supported by contracts and agreements with owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. that contribute. resources. to. the. fund. . Other. receivables due from the public include reimbursable work billings and other trade receivables, and other miscellaneous receivables. Inlragovernmental Re?nanccd and additional appropriated capital 5,492 5,468 Non-operating regulatory assets 3,036 3,452 Residential exchange program scheduled and refund amounts 3.6443 56?) Conservation and ?sh and wildlife projects 519 351 lEither regulatory assets 2i i 233 Subtotal 7,406 4,tit 5 Total regulatory assets 12,398 10,0?3 The Department's PMAs record certain amounts. as. assets in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board's Accounting Standards Codification 980, Regulated Operations. The provisions of this standard require that regulated enterprises reflect rate actions of the regulator in their. financial statements, when appropriate. These rate actions can provide reasonable assurance ofthe. existence ofanasset, reduce or. eliminate the value of an asset, or impose a liability on a regulated enterprise. in order to defer incurred costs under this standard, a regulated entity must have the statutory authority to establish rates that recover all costs, and those rates. must be. charged toand. collected. from customers. REFINANCED AND ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATED CAPITAL EPA is responsible for paying Treasury for transmission and power generating assets that were funded by appropriations, including those ofthe US. Army Corps of Engineers {Corps} and Bureau of Reclamation [Reclamation]. BPA defers the cost, which will be recovered through rates during the periods when the cost is scheduled to be repaid. in accordance with regulatory accounting, EPA records a regulatory asset for this deferred cost that must be repaid to Treasury for those assets. owned. by. the. Corps. and Reclamation. This regulatory asset is amortized between 68 and 7?5 years on a straight-line method over the service lives ofthe assets. The Consolidated Balance Sheets include a regulatory asset and an offsetting related debt [see Note 12]. NON-OPERATING REGULATORY ASSETS Prior to completion, EPA acquired all or part ofthe generating capability of two nuclear facilities. and one hydroelectric project that were subsequently terminated or no longer provide power. The contracts to acquire the generating capability ofthese projects require EPA to pay all. or. part of the. annual projects' budgets, including maintenance. expense. and debt facilities' costs are recovered through rates. These assets. are amortized as. the principal. on the outstanding bonds. is. repaid. RESIDENTIAL EXCHANGE PROGRAM SCHEDULED AND REFUND AMOUNTS EPA in prior years over-collected from consumer-owned utilities and over?paid to investor?owned utilities under the Residential Exchange Program. Regulatory assets and corresponding liabilities were established for the future 43 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2Di?l US. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS exchange benefits and refunds associated with the Residential Exchange Program [see Note 14]. CONSERVATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE Conservation projects consist of the costs of capitalized conservation measures and are amortized over periods of 5 to 20 years. Fish and wildlife projects consist of the costs of capitalized fish and wildlife measures and are amortized over a period of 15 years. OTHER REGULATORY ASSETS Other regulatory assets primarily include Trojan nuclear facility decommissioning and site restoration costs re?ecting amounts to be recovered in future rates for 7. Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees, Net funding the Trojan asset retirement obligation liability; settlements re?ecting contractual settlement agreements or proposed settlements stemming from litigation, [recovered and amortized through future rates over a period as established by the EPA Administrator]; spacer dampers on transmission lines, [amortized over 30 years],- and capital bond premiums re?ecting losses related to refinanced debt, [amortized over the life of the new debt instruments}. In fiscal year 2011, EPA recognized an impairment charge of$20.6 million in deferred spacer damper replacement program costs. loans FCRA Direct loans ATVM Title X?v?ll Total. direct loans and. 100%. guarantee. loans, net FCRA. Guarantee loans (guaranteed value} Title XVII Total direct loans and loan guarantees, net 1.29? 373 5,732 2,435 1,410 '19 7,142 2,514 PRE-FCRA LOANS The Department has two loans outstanding that were issued prior to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 These loans are presented net of an allowance for loss of$26 million as ofSeptember 30, 201 1 and $30 million as of September 30, 2010. FCRA DIRECT LOANS AND LOAN GUARANTEES The Department's direct loan obligations made post-fiscal year 1991, and the resulting direct loans, are governed by the FCRA. These FCRA loans are valued at the net present value of expected future cash ?ows, discounted at the interest rate of Treasury marketable securities. These are known as the subsidy costs, which include interest rate differentials, delinquencies, defaults, fees, and other cash flow items. The subsidy costs are intended to estimate the long?term cost to the U.S. Government ofits loan programs. These costs are recognized in the year the loan is disbursed. A subsidy re-estimate is performed annually at September 30. The subsidy re-estimate takes into account all factors that may have affected the estimated cash ?ows. Any adjustment resulting from the re?estimate is recognized as a subsidy expense. The net present value of the FCRA direct loans is not necessarily representative ofproceeds that might be expected ifthese loans were sold on the open market. Interest revenue is accrued on a basis on the loan balance outstanding at the interest rate assigned to that loan at the time of disbursement, net ofany non- performing interest over 90 days. The Department operates the following FCRA direct loan and loan guarantee programs: Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program I Title X1111 Loan Guarantee Program for Innovative Technologies [Title ATVM Section 136 ofthe Energy Independence and Security Act of 2003? established the ATVM [ncentive Program which authorizes direct loans to support the development of advanced technology vehicles and associated components in the US. The program provides loans to automobile and automobile part manufacturers for the cost of re-equipping, expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the US. to produce advanced technology vehicles or qualified components, and for associated engineering integration costs. An automobile manufacturer applicant must demonstrate that the average adjusted fuel economy for its light duty ?eet exceeds that ofits entire ?eet average for model year 2005, or if the applicant is a new automobile manufacturer it must demonstrate that its vehicle meets or exceeds the industry adjusted average for model year 2005 for equivalent vehicles. All individual vehicles must be rated at or above 125% ofthe fuel economy standards for vehicles with substantially similar attributes US. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 49 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for MY 2005. The ?scal year 2009 Continuing Resolution enacted on September 30, 2008, appropriated $7.5 billion to support a maximum of $25 billion in loans under the The Program issues direct loans which are funded by the FFB with interest rates that are equal to the cost of funds to the Treasury for obligations of comparable maturity. The total subsidy cost for an ATVM direct loan is comprised of default subsidy, financing subsidy, and fees. The loan and subsidy are obligated at the time the conditional commitment is issued. In determining the credit subsidy, the Department estimates a base borrower interest rate from the budget assumption yield curve used to discount cash ?ows that generates a zero ?nancing subsidy when determining the final subsidy cost at the point of obligation. This base interest rate is used for calculating the subsidy cost only. Actual interest rates that borrowers pay are not affected. During the interest rate re-estimate, the actual interest rates and the discount rates are updated and will true-up the difference in the Treasury interest rates assumed in the original subsidy cost, and the actual Treasury rates at the point of disbursement, when the borrower interest rates are set. DOE has received warrants in connection with two of the ATVM loans made. The Department has determined that the warrants have no value until the periods ofvesting are reached or until certain conditions precedent occur. Once warrants vest, the values ofthe warrants will be added to the cash flows for re?estimation ofthe loans with warrants. As ofSeptember 30, 2011, approximately $9.1 billion in loans and conditional commitments for loans has been obligated for six borrowers that have been approved and total disbursements under five loans have amounted to $4.9 billion. TITLE XVII The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes the Department to issue loan guarantees to eligible projects that "avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases" and "employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to technologies in service in the US. at the time the guarantee is issued." Title XVII of provides broad authority for the Department to guarantee loans that support early commercial use of advanced technologies if "there is reasonable prospect ofrepayment ofthe principal and interest on the obligation by the borrower." Title XVII specifies that the Department must receive either an appropriation for the subsidy cost or the borrower must pay that cost. The full year continuing resolution for FY 2011 {Public Law 112-10] made available $170 million for credit subsidy costs and $1.183 billion in self-pay authority for renewable energy or ef?cient end-use energy technology projects. For nuclear power, front-end nuclear and advanced fossil projects, Section 1 703 continues to operate as ?self-pay"_ program whereby borrowers pay the calculated subsidy cost. In addition to the original program {Section 1 703}, the ARRA established a new Section 1705 ofTitle XVII and in FY 2009, appropriated $5.965 billion to pay for the subsidy costs ofloan guarantees for certain renewable energy systems, electric power transmission systems, and leading edge hiofuel projects that commence construction no later than September 30, 2011. Public Law 111?47 required $2 billion ofthe subsidy funds to be transferred to the Department ofTransportation to fund the "Cash for Clunkers? program. Public Law 111-226 required $1.5 billion ofthe subsidy funds to be rescinded. The loan and subsidy are obligated at the time the loan closes. Both Section 1703 and 1705 programs are authorized to issue loan guarantees for up to 100 percent ofa debt obligation, which must not exceed 30 percent of eligible project costs. In cases where the Department issues a 100 percent guarantee, the Final Rule requires that the FFB provide the funding. For the purpose of determining the credit subsidy, the Department models these loan guarantees as direct loans to reflect the economic reality to the federal government as a whole. Under Title XVII, the total subsidy cost for a direct loan is comprised of default subsidy and ?nancing subsidy [as specified in the authorizing statute where fees offset administrative, not subsidy, costs). In implementing the 1705 program, DOE also established the Financial Institution Partnership Program which supported loans for conventional renewable energy generation projects with commercial financing. Under FIPP, DOE provided a guarantee for up to 80 percent ofa loan. The goal of FIPP was to leverage the human and ?nancial capital of private sector financial institutions in accelerating the loan application process, while balancing risk between DOE and private sector partners participating in the program. The subsidy related to FIPP loans was obligated at the time the loans closed. In determining the credit subsidy, the Department estimates a base borrower interest rate from the budget assumption yield curve used to discount cash ?ows that generate a zero ?nancing subsidy when determining the ?nal subsidy cost at the point of obligation. The Department then adds a spread to that interest rate estimate to re?ect any spread that the FPS may charge based on the terms and conditions ofthe loan guarantee agreement. This base interest rate is used for calculating the subsidy cost only. Actual interest rates that borrowers pay are not affected. During the interest rate re-estimate, the actual interest rates and the discount rates are updated and will true?up the difference in the Treasury interest rates assumed in the original subsidy cost, and the actual Treasury rates at the point of disbursement, when the borrower interest rates are set. 50 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US Department of Energy. CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DOE has received warrants in connection with one of the Title loans made. The Department has determined that the warrants have no value until the periods of vesting are reached or until certain conditions precedent occur. Once warrants vest, the values ofthe warrants will be added to the cash flows for re-estimation of the loans with warrants. As of September 30, 2011, conditional commitments to issue guarantees have been issued to four projects totaling $10.6 billion under the Section 1203 program. As of September 30, 2011, approximately billion has been obligated to 28 projects under the Section 1205 program. 21 projects with 100% guarantees ofloans under the Section 1 T05 program, totaling approximately $10.1 billion have been obligated, of which $2.0 billion has been disbursed. Seven projects receiving partial guarantees of loans under the Section HUS FIPP totaling approximately $5.6 billion have been committed, of which $1.8 billion has been disbursed. 'l?wo borrowers ofloans guaranteed under Section 1?05 are in bankruptcy. The present value of the estimated future cash flows for this loan is reflected in the balance sheet and tables in this footnote. Direct Loans and 100% Loan Guarantees Obligated and Disbursed After FY 1991 FY 2011 ATVM 4,912 0 {490} 4,428 2,452 Title XVII . . . ,1,544 Total loans 6.935 17' {1.227) 5,725 3,996 FY2010 ATVM 2,467 3 1.53l Title XVII 464 (92) 373 443 Total loans 55 2,931 4 (507} 2,423 Eli 2,024 0.5. Department of" Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 51 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Subsidy Expense for Direct Loans and 100% Loan Guarantees by Program and Component FY 21111. Subsidy expense for new direct loans disbursed ATVM - [.120 - 1.118 Title, XVII (52) 28? .. 235 Total (52] 1,407 15 31' -. 1,353 Re-eslimales ATVM .- 91 Title XVII 406 404 {339 Total 0523) no 111010 Subsidy expense for new direct loans disbursed ATVM - 1'54 3 152 Title XVII (T) 41 34 Total (T) 795 - 95 T86 Pie-estimates ATVM - (828} (328) (T6) Title XVII ST 51' 91 Total ..- I771) (7'71Subsidy Rates for Direct Loans and 100% Loan Guarantees by Program and Component FY 2011 ATVM 0.0% 23.03% (0. 0.0% 22.93% .Title [8.36% 0.0% 0.0% 14.98% .FY.2010. ATVM 0.0% 0.0% 0. ?fir. 0.0% 0.0% Tide [2.94% 0.0% 0.43% 10.15% Rates are the weighted-average of the individual loan expense. The subsidy expense for new loans reported in subsidy rates for that program. The subsidy rates the current year could result from disbursements ofloans disclosed pertain. only to the current year's cohorts. These from both current year cohorts and prior year[s] cohorts. rates cannot be applied to the direct loans disbursed The subsidy expense reported in the current year also during the current reporting year to yield the subsidj,?r includes re?estimates. 52 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 0.5. Department of EnEI?gy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Schedule for Reconciling Subsidy Cost Allowance Balances [Post-1991 Direct Loans and 100% Loan Guarantees) Beginning balance of the subsidy cost allowance 35 478 Add: subsidy expense for direct loans disbursed during the reporting years by component Interest rate differential costs . . . (52) . . . . Default costs net oi'recoveriesj 1,407 7'95 Fees and other collections . . . . . . . (2) Total of the above subsidy components 55 1,353 33 7'86 Adjustments: Fees received - i Subsidy allowance. amortization . . . . . . (IOEnding balance of subsidy,r cost allowance before re-estimates LBSU [.278 Add or subtract subsidy. re-estimates by component Interest rate re-estiniates (2) - Technicalfdefault re?estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . Ending balance of subsidy ensl allowance 3% 1,227 E5 507 Guaranteed Loans Outstanding New Guaranteed Loans Disbursed FY1011 FY2011 Title XVII. S. . . . 1,?62 S. . . . 1,410 Title XVII. . . . . 1,670 S. . . . . 1.336 FY 2011] FY 2011] Title XVII as i to Title XVII 99 i 79 Liability for Loan Guarantees, Present Value Method Title XVII as 4 US. Department of" Energy Agent}: Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 53 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Subsidy Expense for New Loan Guarantees by Program and Component FY 2011 Subsidy expense ['or new loan guarantees Title XVII 72 72 Pic?estimates Title XVII 2 9 8] FY Subsidy expense for new loan guarantees Title XVII - 4 - 4 ?le-estimates Title XVII - - - 4 Subsidy Rates for Direct Loans and 100% Loan Guarantees by Program and Component .FY. 2011. Title XVII aural tarsal anal anal 156a FY 2010 Title XVII noel arse-l noel noel 3.78% Rates are the weighted?average of the individual loan subsidy rates for that program. The subsidy. rates disclosed pertain only to the current year's cohorts. These rates. cannot be applied to. the guaranteed loans disbursed during the current reporting year to yield the subsidy expense. The subsidy expense for new loans reported in the current year could result from disbursements ofloans front both current year cohorts and prior year[s] cohorts. The subsidy expense reported. in. the current year also. includes re-estitnates. Schedule for Reconciling Loan Guarantee Liability Balances. {Post-1991 Loan Guarantees). Beginning balance. of the loan guarantee liability Default costs (net of recoveries) Total ol? the above subsidy components Adjustments: Interest Accumulation on the liability balance Ending balance of loan guarantee liability before re-estimates Add or subtract subsidy re?estiinates by component Interest rate. re-estimates Technicali?default rte?estimates Ending balance of loan guarantee. liability Add: subsidy expense for guaranteed loans disbursed during the reporting years by component Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2Dl?l Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Administrative Expenses Direct loan program - ATVM Loan guarantee program Title XVII 8. Inventory, Net Inventory includes stockpile materials consisting of crude oil held in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, nuclear materials, highly enriched uranium, and other inventory consisting primarily ofoperating materials and supplies. STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE The SPR consists ofcrudeoil storedin salt domes, terminals, and pipelines. As ofSeptember 30, 2011, and September. 30,. 2010,. the SPR contained crude oil with a. historical cost of $20,668 million and $21,621 million, respectively. The SPR provides a response mechanism should a severe oil disruptionoccur. Included in the SPR is six million barrels of crude oil held for future Department ofDefense use. The ?scal year 1993 Defense Appropriations Act authorized the Department to acquire, transport, store, and prepare. for ultimate. drawdown of crude oil for The crude oil purchased with funding is commingled with the Department's stock and is valued at its historical cost of$123 million at September. 30, 2011, and September 30, 2010 [see Notes 2 and NORTHEAST HOME HEATING RESERVE The Northeast Home Heating l0i] Reserve was established in fiscal year 2000. pursuant to the Energy. Policy and. Conservation Act. The Reserve contained heating oil in the New England, New York, and New Jersey geographic areas. In March. 2011,.the entire reserve. was sold. The value of the reserve was zero as of September 30, 2011 and $79 million as. of September. 30,. 2010. [see Note UCLEAR Nuclear. materials include. weapons materials and related components, including those in the custody ofthe. under Presidential Directive, and materials used for research. and. development purposes. Certain. surplus plutonium carried at zero value [a provision for disposal is included in environmental liabilities] has significant arms control and nonproliferation value and is instrumental to the. 0.5.. in. ensuring that Russia continues toward. the. disposition ofits weapons?grade plutonium. The Department currently has excess Uranium inventories including a total of 15,298 metric tons ofnatural uranium hexafluoride As of September 30,2011, this material. can be. divided into two stockpiles of U.S.- origin [5,156 MTU ofUF6] and Russian origin material [10,142 MTU as The Department approved an agreement in 2009 to barter for certain services with natural uranium inventory. Barter for services with USEC totaled 1,423 MTU [0176}. In addition, under the contractawarded in the fall of 2010.and.a new Secretarial Determination tocomply with the 1996 Privatization Act, an additional 825 MTU was bartered with Fluor, Babcock and Wilcox LLC in FY. 2011. The Secretarial determination allows additional MTU to be bartered through. ?scal. year 2013. The nuclear materials inventory includes numerous items for which future use and disposition decisions have not been made. Decisions for. most of these items will be made. through analysis of the economic benefits and costs, and the environmental impacts. ofthe various use and disposition alternatives. The carrying value of these items is. not signi?cant to. the nuclear. materials stockpile. inventory balance. The Department will recognize disposition liabilities and record the material at net realizable. value when disposal as. waste is identifiedas the. most likely alternative and disposition costs can be reasonably estimated. . inventory values. are reduced. by costs associated with decay or damage. The nuclear materials inventory also. includes. highly enriched uranium The Nuclear Weapons Council declared in December 1994, leading to the Secretary of Energy?s announcement in February 1996, that 124.3 MTU ofthe Department's HEU were excess to national security needs. Most of this. material [about 153. MTU). will. be. blended for sale as low enriched uranium and used over time as. commercial or research nuclear reactor. fuel to. recover its value. The remaining portion [about 21 ofthe material is already in the form ofirradiated fuel or other waste forms and will be disposed ofdirectly as waste. in November 2005, the Secretary of Energy declared that an. additional. 200 MTU will. never again be used as fissile material in nuclear weapons. Out ofthe. 200 MTU, approximately. 20 MTU will be down- blended. to LED for use in commercial or research reactors, 20 Mill will he used for research and 160 WITH will be provided to Naval Reactors. for programmatic use. . Approximately 8 MTU of the Naval Reactors material has been rejected by. Naval Reactors. and. re-designated for down-blending and sale as LEU fuel. Down-blending of this material will occur over the next 10 to 30 years. 0.5. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 55 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 9. General Property, Plant, and Equipment, Net FY. 2.1111 . FY. 2011}. Land and land rights :15 1,904 8 {9111] 994 8 1.7199 315 [854) 945 Structures. and. facilities 371,163 (24,327) 13.436 38,068 (24,434) 13,634 Internal use. software 646 (4T2) 1T4 6?29 8) 2 1 Equipment 17.19] (11.118?) 6,104 18,115? (11,919) 6,138 Natural resources RB (14) 39 98 [13} 85 Construction work in process 9,943 - 9,943 8.634 - 8,6?4 Total general property. plant equipment 67.550 :5 (36.810) 30.740 67.325 {37.638} 29.687 10. Other Non-Intragovernmental Assets Purchased generating capabilin Prepaid pension plan costs mm? Prepaymen ts and advances Non?Federal nuclear decoimnissionin trusts Other Total other non-intragovernmental assets 2,604 2,450 13 89 538 439 199 189 386 254 3,840 3,421 PURCHASED GENERATING CAPABILITY EPA has contracted to acquire all of the generating capability of one nuclear power plant and one hydroelectric project. The contracts to acquire the generating capability ofthe facilities require EPA to pay all or part of the facilities. operating and debt service. BPA recognizes expenses for these projects based upon the total cash. required. to. fund the. projects. These. assets. are amortized as the principal on the outstanding bonds is repaid by the non-federal entities. These assets in the Consolidated Baiance Sheets are related to non?federal debt associated with the generation ofassets. NON-FEDERAL NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING TRUSTS EPA recognizes an asset that represents trust fund balances. for decommissioning and site. restoration costs. Decommissioning costs for Columbia Generating Station are charged to operations over the operating life of the project. External trust funds for decommissioning and site restoration costs are funded for C63. The trust funds. are. expected. to. provide. for decommissioning. at the end of the project?s safe storage period in accordance with the. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission. requirements. The RC requires. that this period be. no longer than 61} years from the time the plant stops operating. The plant is licensed to operate until the current operating license termination year of 2024. Trust fund requirements for CGS are based on an NRC decommissioning cost estimate. and. the license termination date. The trustee is a non-US. Treasury bank that certi?es. the funds. for use. when needed to. retire. the asset. The trusts are funded by EPA ratepayers and are managed by EPA in accordance with the NRC requirements and site certification agreements. OTHER Includes. special purpose corporations' trust funds that are held in separate trust accounts for the construction of transmission assets; a long term. investment held in trust with restricted use under BPA's lease purchase agreements; and unrealized gains from BPA's derivative portfolio, which includes physical power purchase and sale contracts, power exchange contracts, and energy commodity. option contracts. 56 Agency Financia] Report Fiscal Year 2611 US. Department of EnErgy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 11. Liabilities Not Covered By Budgetary Resources Intragovernmental nan 13' 5 19,307 5 14,349 Other 14 13 Total 19,321 14,360 Debt 5.753 5,915 Nuclear Waste Fund deferred revenuesmm 29,990 22.923 Environmental nannies-Wt 15? 248,292 245.405 Pension and other actuarial liabilities?mm 50,304 23,405 lCapital. leases ll} 12 54 Other liabilities Residential exchange - scheduled amounts 3,025 - Environment, safety, and health compliance activities 1,860 1,210 Accrued annual leave for Federal employees 143 148 Other 54 55 Contingencies and commitments Wm: lg] 19,142 15,448 Total liabilities not covered by budgetary resources 352,926 339,923 Total liabilities covered by budgetary resources 13.445 15,529 Total liabilities 321,421 355.552 12. Debt FY. 2011 .FY. 2010. lntragovernmental mm? Borrowing from Treasury 5 2,601 503 5 3,104 2,130 421 2,601 Borrowing from FEB 2931 3,990 6,921 908 2,023 2,931 Appropriated capital 3,812 (45) 3,222 3,966 {149) 3,812 Re?nanced 86. additional appropriations 3,831 22 3.90.3 3,922 (141) 3,831 Capitalization adjustment 1,662 (65) 1,602 1,232 [65] 1.662 Subtotal 14,842 4,460 19,302 12,208 2,139 14,842 Non-Federal projects 5,915 (152; 5,753 6,166 1251} 5.915 Total debt is 20,262 4,308 25,020 18,324 ?3 1,883 20,262 BORROWING FROM TREASURY facilitating the delivery ofpower generated by renewable EPA is. authorized. by. Congress. to issue. to. Treasury. and. energy. have outstanding at any one time, up to $2.2 billion of interest-bearing debt with terms and conditions BORRUWING FROM THE FFB comparable to debt issued by U.S. government To finance its loan programs, the Department is required corporations. The debt may be issued to finance to use the FFB for the program and the 100% loan capital. programs, which. include. Corps and Reclamation guarantees ofthe. Title XVII. program. As of. September 30, direct?funded capital investments. Of the $2.2 billion, $250 2011 and September 30, 2010, the maturity range ofthe million can be. issued to ?nance. Northwest PowerAct debt was from August 15, 2016. to. September 28,. 204-0 and related expenses and $1.25 billion is restricted for August 15, 2016 to lune 12, 2030, respectively. The conservation and renewable resources. The Western Area interest rate range as of September 30, 2011 and Power Administration has authority to borrow up to $3.25 September 30, 2010 was from 1.000 percent to 4.223 billion from Treasury for planning, constructing, financing, percent and from 2.810 percent to 4.223 percent, operating. or. maintaining new or. upgraded electric power respectively. transmission lines and facilities: and for delivering or US. Department of" Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS APPROPRIATED Appropriated capital owed represents the balance of appropriations provided to the Department's PMAs for construction, operation, and maintenance of power facilities that will be repaid to Treasury's General Fund and the Department of the lnterior's [Interior] Reclamation Fund. The amount owed also includes accumulated interest on the net unpaid federal investment in the power projects. The Federal investment in these facilities is to be repaid within 50 years from the time the facilities are placed in service or are commercially operational. Replacements of federal investments are generally expected to be repaid over their useful service lives. There is no requirement for repayment ofa specific amount of federal investment on an annual basis. Each of the PMAs, except for EPA, receives an annual appropriation to fund construction, operation, and maintenance expenses. These appropriated funds are repaid to Treasury's General. Fund and Interior from the revenues generated from the sale of power and transmission services. To the extent that funds are not available for payment, such unpaid annual net deficits become. payable from. the subsequent years'. revenues prior to any repayment of federal investment. The Department treats these appropriations as a debt owed to Treasury's. General Fund and Interior, and as such, the Consolidated Statements oanonges in Net Position do not reflect these funds as appropriated capital used. Except for the appropriation refinancing asset described in Note 6 and in the next paragraph, the Department's ?nancial statements do not re?ect the federal investment in power generating facilities owned by the US. Army Corps of Engineers; the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; and the Department of State, International Boundary and Water Commission. The Department's PMAs, except BPA, are responsible for collecting, and remitting to Treasury, revenues resulting from the sale of hydroelectric power generated by these facilities [see Note BPA makes annual payments to Treasury from its net proceeds. REFINANCED AND APPROPRIATIONS As discussed in Note 6, EPA refinanced its unpaid capital appropriations as of September 30, 1996, and is responsible for the repayment ofadditional appropriated capital investment post-Refinancing Act. Repayment amounts were determined based on the date the respective facilities were placed in service using the weighted-average service lives of the associated investments, not to exceed 50 years. EPA repays amounts owed to Treasury's General Fund and lnterior's Reclamation Fund. CAPITALIZATIUN ADJUSTMENT The amount ofappropriations refinanced as a result ofthe BPA Appropriations Refinancing Act of 1996 was $6.6 billion. After refinancing, the appropriations outstanding were $4.1 billion. The difference between the appropriated debt before and after the re?nancing was recorded as a capitalization adjustment. This adjustment is being amortized over the remaining period of repayment. NON-FEDERAL PROJECTS As discussed in Notes 6 and m, the non?federal projects debt includes both operating and non-operating projects. EPA acquired all ofthe generating capability and agreed to pay the operating, maintenance and debt service costs of Energy. Northwest's three nuclear projectsand of Lewis County Public Utility District?s Cowlitz Falls Hydroelectric Project. Columbia Generating Station nuclear plant is still operating, while Nuclear Project No. 1 and Nuclear Project No. 3 were terminated prior to completion. Though terminated, BPA continues to pay debt service to comply with the contracts. EPA is also required by the Settlement and Termination Agreement between EPA and Northern Wasco PUD to pay annual debt service on the terminated Northern Wasco Hydro Project. Finally, EPA has agreed to fund debt service on Conservation and Renewable Energy System and City of Tacoma Conservation bonds issued to finance conservation programs sponsored by BPA. The following table summarizes future principal and interest payments required for the debt described above. 2012 426 1 7?5 29 25 65 434 2013 123 620 46 18 65 500 2014 103 92? 119 19 65 62? 2015 80 T52 204 55 85 595 2016 30 651 14? - 65 T00 2017+ 2,342 3,227 3,?91 1,27?? 2,90? Total 3,104 6,921 3,7?2 3,903 1,602 5,?63 53 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 13. Deferred Revenues and Other Credits Intragovernmental Nuclear Waste Fund Power marketing administrations Reimbursable rwork advances Other Subtotal 11] Total deferred revenues and. other. credits 64 36 29.990 27.973 1,1191 1.1111 321 275 . 313 .. 2315 31.715 31 29,495 .. 31,719 . . 29,531 UCLEAR FUN NWF revenues are accrued based on fees assessed against owners and generators ofhigh-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel and interest accrued on investments in Treasury securities. These revenues are recognized as a ?nancing source as costs are incurred for NWF activities. Revenues that exceed the NWF expenses are deferred. POWER MARKETING PMA deferred revenues and other credits primarily represent advances and unearned revenues. Primary 14. Other Liabilities components include 1} regular liabilities that reduce future rates; 2] generation interconnection agreement funds held as security for network upgrades that will be returned as credits against future transmission service; 3) customer reimbursable projects that consist ofadvances received from BPA's customers where either the customer or EPA will own the resulting asset; 4] unearned revenues from customers related to the third alternating current intertie capacity project; 5) derivative instruments and 6) fiber optic leasing fees that reflect unearned revenue related to the leasing of the fiber optic cable. lntragovernmental [Notes 1 and Oil held for Department of Defense . . . . .2- Pelroleuin Pricing Violation Escrow Fund I ?If Downward re-estimates on loans outstanding Other Total other intragovernmental liabilities . . Environment, safety, and health compliance activities f? Accrued payroll. bene?ts. and withholding taxes Residential exchange tN 1?3 Naval Petroleum Reserve Deposit Fund - - - - 1 Note 2} Petroleum. Pricm Violation Escrow Fund Asset retirement obligations Other Subtotal Total other liabilities 123 123 247 247 825 TU 86 1,511 1,281 1.860 1,710 1.316 1.298 3.732 659 323 9 1'16 171] 280 239 5 7,373 53 4,4116 3,8 84 . . 5,68? DOWNWARD RE-ESTIMATES ON LOANS OUTSTANDING FCRA requires that the present value ofloans outstanding be updated at the end of each fiscal year. lfthe present value ofany loan increases the government?s cost of the loan is lower than previously estimated}, a downward re?estimate is recorded. The downward re?estimate results in excess subsidies collected that must he returned to Treasury?s general fund in the following fiscal year. ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY. AND HEALTH COMPLIANCE The Department?s environment. safety. and health liability represents those activities necessary to bring facilities and operations into compliance with existing laws and regulations Occupational Safety and Health Act; Clean Air Act: Safe Drinking Water Act]. Types of activities included in the estimate relate to the following: upgrading site-wide fire and radiological US. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 59 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS programs; nuclear safety upgrades; industrial hygiene and industrial safety; safety related maintenance; emergency preparedness programs; life safety code improvements; and transportation of radioactive and hazardous materials. The estimate covers corrective actions expected to be performed in future years for programs outside the purview ofthe Department's Environmental Management Program. activities within the purview of the EM program are included in the environmental liability estimate. The September 30, 2011, change in the liability is due to: additional corrective actions, activities, or programs that are required to improve the facilities' state ofcompliance and move them toward full compliance, or conformance with all applicable ESSLH laws, regulations, agreements, and the Department's orders; revised cost estimates for existing activities; and costs of work performed during the year. ACCRUED PAYROLL, BENEFITS, AND TAXES Accrued payroll and benefits represent amounts owed to the Department's federal and contractor employees for accrued payroll, unfunded accrued annual leave for federal employees, funded accrued annual leave for contractor employees, payroll withholdings owed to state and local governments, and Thrift Savings Plan withholdings and employer contributions. EXCHANGE EPA in prior years over-collected from consumer-owned utilities and over-paid to the investor?owned utilities [[005] under the Residential Exchange Settlement Agreements. Regulatory assets and corresponding liabilities were established for the future exchange bene?ts and refunds associated with these agreements. The liabilities for residential exchange benefit agreements are comprised of scheduled amounts and refund amounts. The residential exchange scheduled amounts are for specified payments to lOUs required pursuant to the 2012 Residential Exchange Program Settlement Agreement. Under the provisions of this agreement, beginning in FY 2012, the [005? residential exchange benefits will be reduced through the rates process to reflect the Scheduled Amounts through FY 2028. The residential exchange schedule amounts liability was $3,075 million as of September 30, 2011 and is offset with a regulatory asset [see Notes 6 and 11]. The 2012 Settlement Agreement also establishes amounts to be provided as credits on bills through FY 2019. The residential exchange refund amounts liability, which are offset by regulatory assets, were $565 million and $659 million as ofSeptember 30, 2011, and September 30, 2010, respectively [see Note Also included in the FY 2011 Refqu Amount balance is $92 million related to interim agreements associated with the Residential Exchange Program. ASSET Asset retirement obligations primarily represent legal obligations related to dismantlement and restoration costs on non-federally owned or operated nuclear facilities. The ARUs relate primarily to C05 decommissioning and site restoration, terminated Energy Northwest Project Nos. 1 and 4 site restoration, and decommissioning costs for the former Trojan nuclear power plant, which has been partially dismantled. OTHER LIABILITIES Other liabilities consist primarily ofcustodial and non- custodial deposit funds, suspense accounts, receipts due to Treasury, and contract advances. 15. Environmental Cleanup and Diaposal Liabilities Beginning balance 250.209 262.65? Changes to environmental cleanup and disposal liability estimates ij? 24 and 25) 10,184 (9,030) Costs applied to reduction of legacy environmental liabilities mm (7,881) (6,515) Capital expenditures related to remediation activities Ending environmental cleanup and disposal liabilities . . . . . Ni 11 Unfunded environmental Funded environmental liabilities Total enviromnental cleanup and disposal liabilities (1,943) (1,903) 250,569 0 250,209 0 248.29? 0 245.405 2272 4.804 0 250,509 0 250,200 After World War II, the U.S. developed a massive industrial complex to research, produce, and test nuclear weapons and commercial nuclear power reactors. The nuclear complex was comprised of nuclear reactors, chemical processing buildings, metal machining plants, laboratories, and maintenance facilities. At all sites where these activities took place, some environmental contamination occurred. This contamination was caused by the production, storage, and use of radioactive materials and hazardous chemicals, which resulted in contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater. In particular, the environmental legacy of 60 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 U.S. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS nuclear weapons production also includes thousands of contaminated buildings and large volumes of waste and special nuclear materials requiring treatment, stabilization, and disposal. Approximately. one?halfmillion cubic meters ofradioactive high-level, mixed, and low- level wastes must be stabilized, safeguarded, and dispositioned, including a quantity. ofplutonium sufficient to fabricate thousands of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of1982 [the Act] established the Department?s. responsibility to provide for permanent disposal of the Nation?s high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. The Act requires all owners and generators of high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear. fuel, including the. Department, to pay their respective shares of the full cost ofthe program. To that end. the. Act establishes a fee. on owners and generators that the Department must collect and annually assess to determine its adequacy. The Department?s liability reflects its share ofthe estimated future costs ofthe program based on its inventory ofhigh-level waste and spent nuclear fuel. The Department?s liability does not include the portion of the cost attributable to other owners and generators. In addition to the assumptions and uncertainties discussed above, the following key. assumptions and uncertainties relate to the Department?s estimates: a The Department has identi?ed approximately 10,500 potential release sites from which contaminants could migrate into the environment. Although virtually all of these sites have been at least partially characterized, final remedial action and regulatory decisions have not been made for many sites. Site-specific assumptions regarding the amount and type of contamination and the remediation technologies that will. be. utilized were used in estimating the environmental liability related to these sites. It Cost estimates for management of the Department?s high-level waste have been predicated upon assumptions as to the timing and rate ofacceptance of the waste at a geologic repository. Changes in high- level waste disposition plans could cause Departmental project costs to increase. 0 Estimates are based on remedies considered technically and environmentally reasonable and achievable by local project managers and appropriate regulatory authorities. II Estimated cleanup costs at sites for which there is no current feasible remediation approach are excluded from the estimates, although applicable stewardship and monitoring costs for these sites are included. An example of such a site is the nuclear explosion test area at the Nevada National Security Site. The Department has not been required via regulation to establish remediation activities for these sites. Changes to the Department?s estimates during fiscalyears. 2011 and 2010 resulted from inflation adjustments to reflect constant dollars. for the current year; improved and updated estimates for the same scope of work, including changes resulting from deferral or acceleration of work; revisions in technical approach or scope; regulatory changes: and cleanup activities performed. The Department?s liabilities also include the estimated cleanup. and post?closure responsibilities, including surveillance and monitoring activities, soil and groundwater remediation, and disposition of excess material for sites. The Department is responsible for the post-closure activities at many of the closure sites as well as other sites [former uranium mills and certain sites remediated by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers]. The costs for these post?closure activities are. estimated. for a period of 25 years after the balance sheet date, through 2086 in fiscal year 2011 and through 2085 in fiscal year 2010. While some post-cleanup monitoring and other long-term stewardship activities post 2086 are included in the liability. there are. others the Department expects. to continue beyond 2086 for which the costs cannot reasonably be estimated. Also included in these liabilities are estimates for the disposition ofvarious materials; the most significant being surplus plutonium. A portion of the environmental liability at various ?eld sites includes. anticipated costs for facilities managed by the Department's ongoing program operations which will ultimately require stabilization, deactivation, and decommissioning. The estimate is largely based upon a cost?estimating model. Site?speci?c estimates are used, in lieu ofthe cost-estimating model, when available. Cost estimates for on-going program facilities are updated each year. For facilities newly contaminated since fiscal year 1897, environmental liability costs are allocated to the periods benefiting from the operations ofthe facilities. Facilities cleanup costs allocated to future periods and not included in the liability amounted to $920 million at September. 30, 2011, and $608 million. at September. 30, 2010. in fiscal year 2011, the Department recorded an additional liability for asbestos mitigation in accordance with Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Technical Bulletin 2008?1, Deferral ofthe Ej?ctive Date of 'f'echnicof Bulfetin 2006-1, Recognition and Measurement of Asbestos?Related Cleanup Costs. This additional asbestos liability totaled $334 million as ofSeptember 30, 2011. Estimating the Department?s environmental. cleanup liability requires making assumptions about future activities and is inherently uncertain. The future course of the Department's environmental cleanup and disposal will depend on a number of fundamental technical and policy choices, many of which have not been made. The cost and environmental implications ofalternative choices can be profound. For example, some contaminated sites and facilities could be restored to a condition suitable for any desired use; they could also be restored to a point where they pose no near-term health risks to surrounding 0.5. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 61 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. communities but are essentially surrounded by fences and left in place. Achieving the former conditions would have a higher cost but may, or may not, warrant the costs or be legally required. The estimates reflect applicable decisions and current expectations as to the extent of cleanup and site and facility reuse, which include consideration of Congressional mandates, regulatory direction, and stakeholder input. The environmental liability estimates include contingency estimates intended to account for the uncertainties associated with the technical cleanup scope ofthe program. The environmental liability estimates are dependent on annual funding levels and achievement of work as scheduled. Congressional appropriations at lower than anticipated levels or unplanned delays in project completion would cause increases in life?cycle costs. All environmental liabilities as of September 30, 2011, and September 30. 2010.. are stated. in. fiscal. year 2011 dollars and fiscal year 2010 dollars, respectively, as required by generally accepted accounting principles for federal entities. Future inflation could cause actual costs to be substantially higher than the recorded liability. SITE The Department's Hanford Site covers SSE?square-miles in the desert of southeastern Washington State. The area is home to nine former production reactors and their associated processing facilities that were built beginning in 1943. The reactors were used from 1944 until 198? to produce plutonium, a man?made, radioactive, chemical element needed for atomic weapons. Production facilities at Hanford. generated billions. ofgallons ofliquid waste and millions of tons ofsolid waste which must now be cleaned up, removed, or remediated. Hanford cleanup is expected to be completed in 2060. with decontamination and decommissioning through 2066. The major activities comprising the environmental liabilitiesat Hanford. include the following: I The Waste Treatment Plant is a multi?year construction project and once complete will process and treat 53 million. gallons oftank waste currently stored in 17? underground tanks. I River Corridor Closure includes remediation of 820 contaminated waste sites [including liquid waste sites, solid waste sites. and burial grounds}, deactivation. decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition of 520 excess that are adjacent to the Columbia River; and the placement of eight reactors. into an interim safe storage condition. SAVANNAH RIVER SITE The Savannah River Site located in South Carolina, is 310 square miles in size with 1,000 facilities concentrated within only 10 percent of the total land area. SRS was constructed during the early 1950sto produce the basic materials used in the fabrication of nuclear weapons, primarily tritium and plutonium?239, in support ofour nation's defense programs. The SRS cleanup strategy is to eliminate or minimize nuclear materials, spent nuclear fuel, and waste through safe stabilization, treatment, and/or disposition; reduce the costs of continuing operations and surveillance and maintenance: and decommission facilities, as well as remediate groundwater and contaminated soils consistent with. regulatory agreements. The. Department?s completion strategy provides a comprehensive risk?based approach to the legacy cleanup project, such as disposition of radioactive liquid waste through vitrification of the high activity component at the site's Defense Waste Processing Facility, the use ofexisting SRS facilities to receive. store, and disposition aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel and decommissioning of all facilities that are not required for continuing missions. SRS cleanup is expected to be completed in 2034. The major activities comprising the environmental liabilities at SRS include the following: I Radioactive Liquid Waste Stabilization and Disposition project includes safely and effectively treating, stabilizing and disposing of approximately million gallons oflegacy radioactive waste currently stored in 49 underground storage tanks. Surplus plutonium disposition program provides the capability. to convert the nation's surplus weapons-grade plutonium into a form suitable for use in commercial nuclear reactors and includes the construction, operation, and. the decontamination and demolition ofthe. Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility and supporting facilities. The disposition of surplus plutonium from stockpile reductions through the MOX program is an important part of the United States' efforts to make sure that plutonium. can no. longer. be. readily used. for nuclear weapons purposes. The activities satisfy commitments under. treaty with Russia. IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY SITE The ldaho National Laboratory {Idaho} is an extensive research and engineering complex that has been the center ofnuclear energy research since 1949. It occupies 890. square miles in southeastern Idaho. The ldaho Site has fulfilled numerous DOE missions including. the design and testing of 52 nuclear reactors, the largest concentration of reactors in the world, and reprocessing spent nuclear fuel to recover fissile materials. The world's first usable electricity from nuclear energy was produced by Idaho in 1951.. These activities resulted in an inventory ofhigh? level, transuranic, mixed low-level and low-level wastes. The legacy cleanup scope is scheduled. to be. completed in 2042. The major activities comprising the environmental liabilities at ldaho include the following: I The Spent Nuclear Fuel Stabilization and Disposition project includes stabilizing legacy spent nuclear fuel and managing the receipt of off-site spent nuclear fuel shipments. I The Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition Project is treating and disposing the sodium?bearing tank wastes, closing the tank farm 62 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS tanks, as well as maintaining the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center. This project also includes activities to support the preparation of stored high-level waste calcine for final disposition off-site. GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANTS The Department constructed and operated three gaseous diffusion plants located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky to enrich uranium. The plants had a long history ofenriching uranium for defense and commercial nuclear power needs. Their mission was to produce low-assay enriched uranium for use as commercial nuclear reactor fuel and resulted in radioactive and chemical contamination at the sites and beyond the sites' boundaries. Presently, the sites are transitioning from primarily enrichment operations to shared missions with environmental cleanup, waste management, depleted uranium conversion, deactivation and decommissioning, re?industrialization, and long?term stewardship. The cleanup scope is scheduled to be completed in 2044. The major activities comprising the environmental liabilities at the GDPs include the following: I Portsmouth and Paducah Nuclear Material Stabilization and Disposition?Depleted Uranium Hexa?uoride Conversion projects includes the design, permitting, constructing, and operating of the depleted uranium 16. Pension and Other Actuarial Liabilities hexa?uoride conversion facilities at the Portsmouth and Paducah sites. These facilities will convert the material into a more stable form ofdepleted uranium oxide suitable for reuse or disposition. Both Portsmouth and Paducah Nuclear Facility projects include environmental cleanup and risk reduction through surveillance and maintenance activities, such as decontamination and decommissioning ofinactive or excess facilities at the Portsmouth and Paducah sites. 0. Oak Ridge ofthe K-25 and gaseous diffusion process buildings due to the deteriorating condition of the buildings affecting worker safety. ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY ESTIMATES FOR OTHER SITES Environmental liabilities exist for other sites and activities across the Department. The cleanup activities at these sites are similar to those mentioned above, such as soil and groundwater remediation; waste retrieval, treatment, and disposal; nuclear reactor and other facilities decontamination and decommissioning; etc. The Department?s environmental liability also includes waste dispositioning; program costs, such as mission support, technology development, and program direction; and post? closure long?term surveillance and maintenance activities. Contractor pension plans Contractor postretirement bene?ts other than pensions Contractor disability and life insurance plans Federal Employees? Compensation Act [Note 11} Total pension and other actuarial liabilities 8 16,205 13,439 13,988 H.804 16 18 95 94 305304 23,406 Most ofthe Department?s major contractors sponsor defined benefit pension plans which promise to pay specified bene?ts to their employees, such as a percentage ofthe final average pay for each year of service. The Department?s allowable costs under these contracts include reimbursement ofannual contractor contributions to these pension plans. Most of the contractors also sponsor postretirement benefits other than pensions consisting of predominantly postretirement health care benefits. The Department approves, for cost reimbursement purposes, these contractors' pension and postretirement benefit plans and is responsible for the allowable costs of funding the plans. The Department also reimburses these contractors for employee disability insurance plans, and estimates are recorded as unfunded liabilities for these plans. PENSION PLANS The Department follows FASB ASC 7?15, Compensation Retirement Benefits, for contractor plans for which the Department has a continuing obligation to reimburse allowable costs. As of September 30, 2011, the Department reports contractor pension assets of$102 million and contractor pension liabilities of $16.205 billion. The Department has a continuing obligation to reimburse allowable costs for a variety ofcontractor-sponsored pension plans {40 qualified and 11 nonqualified]. In this regard, benefit formulas consist of final average pay [38 plans], career average pay [8 plans}, and dollar per month of service (5 plans). Eighteen of the plans cover nonunion employees only; 8 cover union employees only; and 25 cover both union and nonunion employees. For qualified defined benefit pension plans, the Department?s current funding policy is to reimburse contractors for contributions made by the contractors to defined benefit pension plans sponsored by the contractors. Contractors are required to make contributions to their plans as required by the Internal Revenue Code, the Employee Retirement income Security Act as amended, and Departmental direction. For nonqualified plans, the funding policy is pay-as-you-go. US. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 63 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Plan assets generally include cash and equivalents, stocks, corporate bonds, government bonds, real estate, venture capital, international investments, and insurance contracts. There. are three plans that have securities. ofthe employer or related parties included in the plan assets. No assets are expected to be returned to the employers during the next ?scal year. Assumptions and Methods Contractors use their own actuarial assumptions. for determining required. contributions to employee pension plans. However, in order to provide consistency among the Department?s various contractors for financial reporting purposes, the Department requires the use of certain standardized actuarial assumptions. These standardized assumptions include the discount rates, mortality assumptions, and an expected long-term rate ofreturn on plan assets, salary scale, and any other economic assumption consistent with an expected long-term inflation rate of 3.0 percent for the entire U.S. economy with adjustments to. re?ect regional. or. industry rates as appropriate. In most cases, ERISA valuation actuarial assumptions for demographic assumptions were used. The following speci?c assumptions and methods were used to determine the net periodic cost. The weighted average discount rate was 5.0 percent for FY 2011 and 5.5 percent for. FY 2010;. the weighted average long?term rate. of return on assets was 2.60 percent for FY 2011 and 7.88 percent for FY 2010; and the average rate ofcompensation increase was 4.6 percent for both FY 201 1 and FY 2010. The average long-term rate ofreturn on assets shown above is the. average rate for all. of the. contractor plans. Each contractor develops its own average long-term rate of return on. assets based on the specific investment profile ofthe specific plans it sponsors. Therefore, there is no one overall approach to setting the rate of return for each of the contractors'. plans. The weighted average discount rates used to determine the benefit obligations as of September 30, 2011,. and September. 30, 2010, were 4.5 percent and 5.0 percent, respectively. . The aggregate September 30, 2011, accumulated benefit obligation and aggregate fair value of plan assets for plans with accumulated bene?t obligations in excess ofplan assets are $35.690 billion and $23.392 billion, respectively. The. aggregate. September 30, 20 1 1, projected bene?t obligation. and. aggregate fair value of plan assets for plans with projected benefit obligations in excess of plan assets are $39.59? billion and $23.392 billion, respectively. Since the Department reports under Federal accounting requirements, newly measured net prior service Ctists?credits] and net [gains]flosses are recognized immediately as components of net periodic cost rather than classified as other comprehensive income under EASE. ASC 215 and later amortized and included as components of net periodic cost. All components of the net periodic cost are recognized in the Consolidated Statements ofNet Costs. Service. costs are recorded. by program. and all. other net periodic costs are recorded as costs not assigned [See Note lfthe Department classified these costs as other comprehensive income, the amortization ofthe net transition [asset]fobligation, the net prior service and the net for the defined benefit pension plans that would have been included in the net periodic cost would have been $0 million, $23. million, and $693 million in FY 2011, and million, million, and $594 million in FY 2010, respectively. The estimated amortization ofthe net prior service cost?credit], and the net [gain]floss that would have been included in the net periodic cost in FY 2012 are $16 million, and $942 million, respectively. CONTRACTOR POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS OTHER THAN PENSIONS The Department follows FASB ASC 215, Compensation Retirement Bene?ts, for contractor plans for which the Department has a continuing obligation to reimburse allowable costs. The Department accrues the cost during the years that the employees render service. As of September 30, 2011, the Department reports contractor PRB assets of $11 million and contractor PR8 liabilities of $13.988 billion. Generally, the PR8 plans are unfunded, and the Department's funding policy is to fund on a pay?as? you-go basis. There are six contractors, however, that are prefunding benefits in part as permitted bylaw. The Department?scontractors sponsor a variety of postretirement benefits other than pensions. Benefits consist ofmedical [41 contractors], dental [18 contractors}, life insurance [23 contractors], and Medicare Part 8 premium reimbursement [il- contractors]. Forty?one ofthe contractors sponsor a point of service plan, a Preferred Provider Organization (FPO), a Health Maintenance Organization or similar plan. Seventeen of these also have a traditional indemnity or similar plan.. None ofthe contractors with assets for PR8 has any employer securities. Assumptions and Methods - in order to provide consistency among the Department?s various contractors, certain standardized actuarial assumptions were used. These standardized assumptions include medical and dental trend rates, discount rates, and mortality assumptions. The following specific assumptions and methods, with. respect to trends in the costs ofmedical and dental benefit plans, were used in determining the P88 estimates. The medical trend rates for a point of service plan, an HMO, a PPO, or similar plan, grade. from. 1 0.0 percent in 2011 down to 5.0 percent in 2021 and later for under age 65; 8.0 percent in 2011 down to. 5.0 percent in 201'? and later for. age 65 and older: or 9.5 percent in 2011 down to 5.0 percent in 2020 and later for any age on a combined basis. The medical trend rates for a traditional indemnity plan, or 64 Agency Financial. Report Fiscal Year2011. . 0.5. Department of EnErgy CONSOLIDATED AND. COMBINED. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. similar plan, grade from 10.5 percent in 2011 down to 5.0 percent in 2022 and later. Separate trend rates. werc used this year for a Medicare Advantage plan that grade from 31.5. percent in 2011 down to 5.5 percent in 2022. and later; a Part prescription drug plan (PUP) that grade from 13.0 percent in 2011 down to 5.0 percent in 2020 and later; and a MA plan combined with a PDF that grade from 22.5 percent down to 5.5 percent in 2022 and later. The medical trend rates or combination of rates. used to determine the PRB estimates are dependent on each contractor?s speci?c plan design and impact of health care reform ifapplicable. The dental trend rates at all ages grade down from 6.0 percent in 2011 down to 5.0 percent in 2015 and later. The weighted average discount rates of5.0 percent for FY 2011 and 5.5 percent for FY 2010, and the weighted average long?term rate of return on assets of 5.56 percent for FY 201 1 and 5.55 percent for FY 2010 were used to determine the net periodic cost. The rate ofcompensation increase was the same rate as each contractor used to determine pension contributions. The average long-term rate of return on assets shown above is the average rate for all of the contractor plans. Each contractor develops its own average long?term rate of return on assets based on the specific investment profile ofthe specific plans it sponsors. Therefore, there is no one overall approach to setting the rate ofreturn for each of the contractors? plans. The weighted average discount rates used to determine the benefit obligation as ofSeptember 30, 2011, and September 30, 2010, were 4.5 percent and 5.0 percent, respectively. The September 30, 2011, aggregate accumulated benefit obligation and aggregate fair value ofplan assets for plans with accumulated bene?t obligations in excess ofplan assets are $14.140 billion and $153 million, respectively. Since the Department reports under Federal accounting requirements, newly measured net prior service and net [gains]/losses are recognized immediately as components of net periodic. cost rather than classified as other comprehensive income under FASB A56 715 and later amortized and included as components ofnet periodic cost. All components of the net periodic cost are recognized in the Consolidated Statements ofNet Costs. Service. costs are recorded. by program and all other net periodic costs are recorded as costs not assigned [See Note 24]. lfthe Department classified these costs as other comprehensive income, the amortization ofthe net prior service cost?credit} and the net (gain?loss for the PRB plans that would have been included in the net periodic cost would have been [$197] million and $121 million in FY 2011, and [$135} million and $159 million in FY 2010,. respectively. Additional amortization of$2 million and million. due. to curtailments and. settlements would also have been included in FY 2011 and 2010, respectively. The estimated amortization of the net prior service cosh/[credit] and the net {gainjfloss that would have been included in the net periodic cost in FY 2012 are [$179] million and $1 24 million, respectively. The FY 2011 and FY 2010 values reflect the impact of the passage of health care reform legislation in March 2010. Changes in the law that potentially affect contractor postretirement benefit plans include an excise tax on high- cost health plans, closing of the Medicare Part coverage gap, changes in payments to Medicare Advantage plans, elimination oflifetime benefit maximums, coverage of dependent children to age 26, and temporary federal reimbursement of certain costs under the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program. Adjustments to the liabilities re?ect the contractors' best estimates given the. limited. guidance available on implementation of the new laws. Liabilities in future years may need to be adjusted further as additional guidance is issued under the laws. On December 8, 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 was signed into law. The law provides for a Federal subsidy to sponsors of retiree healthcare benefit plans that provide a benefit at least actuarially equivalent to the benefit established by the law. There are currently 28 contractors that have concluded that their plans are at least actuarially equivalent [including 3 that also have plans providing a Medicare Part PDP or MA plan]. There are 9 plans that do not benefit retirees over 65, 2 plans have determined they are not actuarially equivalent, and 2 plans provide a PDP or MA plan. Generally, the Department has re?ected the impact of the subsidy. as a reduction to the employers' cost of the bene?ts. 0.5. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 65 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS NET AMOUNT RECOGNIZED IN THE BALANCE SHEET Accumulated benefit obligation 36.503 515 33.330 Effect of future. compensation. increases 3,452 Benefit obligation 40.433 36,287 14.148 5 14.962 Plan assets 24,330 23.322 17"] 168 Net amount recognized in the balance sheet (net funded status) 53 (16,103} (13,410} {13,927} (14,294] RECONCILIATION. OF AMOUNTS. RECOGNIZED IN THE BALANCE SHEET Asset (prepaid pension plan costs} Tommi mg :15 in} 1 Liability (16.205) {13.489} (13.988) (14.8041 Net amount recognized in the balance sheet [net funded status) [16,103] {13,410} {13,977} (14,794] COMPONENTS OF NET PERIODIC COSTS .INnIcs 2-1 and 2m Service was one 846 :15 Ha Interest costs 1.800 1,817 624 696 Expected return on plan assets (1.815} 11.226} (9) (Gainji'loss. due to. curtailments. settlements or special. termination bene?ts 2 Net prior service costt'tcredit} 4 [5071 {681) (168) Net 2357 .. 1.059 (639) 2,490 Total net periodic costs 3,662 1,439 {423} 3.300 CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFIT PAYMENTS Employer contributions 25335 Participant contributions .. 9 81 83 Benefit payments 1.533 1.335 422* 420* Includes $8 million paid from plan assets for FY 2011, and $8 million paid from plan assets for FY 2010. For FY 201 1, gross bene?t payments were $485 million including $13 million of Federal Medicare subsidy. This resulted in net benefit payments of $422 million for FY 201 1. For FY 2010. gross benefit payments were S488 million including $12 million of Federal Medicare subsidy. This resulted in net bene?t payments of $426 million for FY 2010. Expected contributions. for ?scal year. ending September 30. 2012 Employer contributions 1.461 Participant contributions 3 102 ESTIMATED. FUTURE BENEFIT. PAYMENTS Fiscal Year 2012 1.051] 594 21 573 .. Fiscal Year2013 . .1332 . . . . .23. . .631. Fiscal Year 2014 1.841 221 26 695 Fiscal Year 2015 1,957Ir 7'87 29 758 Fiscal Year 2010 2.050 353 3 822 Fiscal Year 201? to 2021 . .. .. 1 1,892. . .. . 5.205 .. .. . .206 . .. . 4,999. 66 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 0.5. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED, AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The following chart shows the average target allocation for the 40 pension benefit plans and six other postretirement benefit plans with assets. The weighted average actual FY 2011 allocations ofassets are also shown. Cash and Equivalents 2.10% 2.90% 2.60% 0.20% 0.20% 0.40% US Government Bonds 12.20% 10.00% 1 1.20% 4.20% 4.20% 5.00% State and Municipal Government Bonds 0.90%l 0.50% 0.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Foreign Government Bonds 0.30% 0.50% 0.80% 0.10% 0.20% 0. 10% Hi gh?vield Corporate Bonds l.00% 1.40% 2.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Corporate Bonds other than hi gh-yield 10.20% 12.80% 5.80% 4.20% 4.20% 4.30% Small Cap. Domestic Equities 3.60%l 3.90% 4.80% 0.50% 0.50% 0.30% Mid Cap Domestic Equities 4.90% 5.10% 2.30% 1.00% 1.00% 2.00% Large. Cap. Domestic Equities 22.10%l 24.20% 24.80% 3.30% 3.30% 2.50% International Equities 20.00% 12.10% 19.90% 3.90% 4.80% 4.00% Real Estate. Investment Funds 2.30%l 2.60% 2.20% 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% Ulher. Real Estale 0.40% 0.40% 0.30% 1. 11.1% 0.00% 001.1% Mortgage?Backed Securities 1.20%l 2.20% 2.20% 0.80% 0.80% 0.80% AsseI-Backed Commercial Paper 0.00% 0. 10% 0.30% 0.00% 0.00% Derivatives, including Collateralized Debt Obligations and Credit Default Swaps 0.00% 090% {11-10%} 0.00%- 0-00% 000% Private lnveslment Funds,_ including [ledge Funds 5.00% o. 10% 5.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Insurance Contracts {general accounts) 0.10%l 0. 60% 0.40% 20.50% 20.50% 21.40% Insurance Conlracls. (separate accounts} 0.00% 0. 10%- 0. 10% 8. 11.1% 8. 11.1% 2.30% Employer Securities 0.30%l 0.20% 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Aggregate Bond Index, Long Bond Index 1.10% 1.10% 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% lOther 0.80% 1.20% 0.00% 1.10% 0.20% Total 100.0 100.0 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Each contractor develops its own investment policies and returns while limiting risk and providing liquidity strategies for the plans it sponsors. Therefore, there is no coverage ofbenefit payments. one overall investment policy for the contractors? plans. Generally, their objectives provide for benefit security for The following chart shows the. allocation ofthe. assets for plan participants through. the maximization oftotal the 40 pension benefit plans with assets among the levels in. the fair value hierarchy. 0.5. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Asset Class Total [Level 1] {Level 2} [Level3] Cash anti Equivalents (190 195 324 US. Government Bonds .. 3.903 1,222 .. 2.485 .. 19'?Jr State and Municipal Government Bonds I It] IS 92 - Foreign Government Bonds 129I - 1[i gh-yi eld Corporale Bonds 334 43 291 - lCorporate Bonds other than high-yield .. 3.1 244 .. 2.86? - Small Cap Domestic Equities 958 344 I I4 - Mid Cap Domestic Equities .. 1.235 1,188 .. 4? - Large Cap Domestic Equities 5.89? 3.93? 1.900 International Equities 4,165 3,092 1,0?3 - Real Estate Investment Funds 104 2f": 505 Other Real Estate 93 - - 93 Mortgage-Backed Securities (349 44 005 - Asset-Backed Commercial Paper 15 - 15 - Derivatives 2'2? 24 l4) - Private Investment Funds 1,490 410 - 1,080 Insurance ('Iontracls [general account) 141 - T2 T0 litsurance Contracts; (separate account] 34 - 34 - Employer Securities 50 50 Aggregate Bond Index. Long Bond 1ndex 268 - 268 - Other 196 129 5 8 1) Total Assets 24,330 11,1172 10,231 2,273 The. following chart shows the. reconciliation. of the Level 3 assets for. FY 2011 for the 4-0 pension. benefit plans with assets. BeginningBalanc-e . . .3. . . 243. 53. TO . . 821. SB ..94 $1,360 Actual return on plan assets: Relating to assets still held at. thereportingdate .184 .. (193} . 62 . - ..95 - 154 Relating to assets sold during the period 1 19 20 . . .l291 . . . .. . . .(.243 Transfers. in andfor. out of Level 3 49 390[231 . . - . 493 Other .. - .. -. 3. - .. ..3 Ending Balance 324 ill 3i - 505 93 1,030 $1 70 9 2,273 Pension assets included in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy are valued daily based on quoted prices in active markets. Assets included in Level 2 are valued using signi?cant observable inputs other than quoted prices in active markets. US Government Bonds and Corporate Bonds. included in Level. 2. assets. are generally part of collective investment funds. valued at the net asset values. ofthe funds based on the quoted prices of the underlying securities in active markets. Other bonds in these categories are valued based on interest rates and yield curves. observable at commonly. quoted. intervals or at bid evaluation. prices for securities. traded on. OTC markets as provided by independent pricing vendors. Domestic and international Equities included in Level 2 assets are generally part of collective investment funds valued at the net asset values ofthe funds based on the quoted prices of the. underlying securities in active. markets. Assets included in Level 3 are valued using significant unobservable inputs. Private Investment Funds and Real. Estate Funds included in Level 3 assets are generally priced by the fund general partners. verified by independent third?party appraisers. and audited by independent auditing firms. The. actual market values are. generally only determinable by negotiations between 63 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 0.5. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS independent parties pursuant to sales transactions. Assets held in Life insurance Company General Accounts under Level 3 are generally credited guaranteed interest rates under the contracts or are valued based on the values of the underlying asset holdings of the accounts. The $171 million of assets in the six other postretirement bene?t plans include $135 million of investments in insurance contracts of which $119r million is valued using signi?cant unobservable inputs {Level The balance of the Level 3 insurance contracts increased by $1 million during FY 2011 from $118 million to $119 million due to the return on assets still held at the reporting date. The remaining assets in the other postretirement benefit plans are invested in asset classes similar to the assets of the pension plans. None of the other assets in the other postretirement benefit plans were valued using unobservable inputs. Other Postretirement Benefit assets included in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy are valued daily based on quoted prices in active markets. international Equities in mutual funds employ fair value pricing in accordance with SEC requirements to re?ect market events where the exchange on which they are traded is closed prior to the close of US mutual funds. Assets held in Life Insurance Company General and Separate Accounts under Levels 2 and 3 ofthe fair value hierarchy are generally credited guaranteed interest rates based on customized fixed income indices. The FASB Accounting Standards Update No. 2009- 12, ?Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures: investments in Certain Entities That Calculate Net Asset Value per Share [or Its Equivalent)". was. issued in 17.. Capital Leases September 2009. This ASU provides guidance on using the NAV per share provided by investces to estimate the fair value of an alternative investment. The ASU requires enhanced disclosures about the nature and risks of investments within its scope. Such disclosures include the nature ofany restrictions. on. an investor?s, ability to redeem its investments at the measurement date, any unfunded commitments, and the investment strategies of the investee. investments in investment funds, which are recorded based on the net asset value per share [or its equivalent), are reported by the underlying funds without further adjustment. as a practical expedient offair value. Generally, the fair value of the investment in a privately offered investment fund represents the amount that the investor could reasonable expect to receive from the investment fund ifthe investment is withdrawn at the measurement date based on the NAV. These investments are redeemable at NAV under the original terms of the agreements and based on the operation of the underlying funds. However, it is possible that these redemption rights may be restricted or eliminated by the funds in the future in accordance with the underlying fund agreements. The Department?s contractors reported $3.9 billion of assets subject to these disclosures. These investments are distributed 70% in equity funds, 19% in private investment funds, 7% in ?xed income funds, 3% in real estate funds, and 1% in short term investment funds of various investment strategies. The investments can be redeemed daily for 52% of these assets, up to for 25%, and quarterly for The redemption notice period is a week or less in nearly all cases. For 2% of these assets, the investments cannot be redeemed for the life of the fund. There are approximately $50 million in unfunded commitments related to these assets. SUMMARY OF ASSETS UNDER CAPITAL LEASE Power line equipment Buildings and improvements Automatic Data Processing Equipment Contruclion work in progress Other assets Total capital lease assets Less accumulated depreciation Net assets under capital leases 36133 104 949 353 (272) {216] 677 637 US. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 69 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2011 3rd Quarter 2012 2014 1 19 19 2015 224 - 224 2016 160 - 160 2012+ 293 2 295 Total future lease payments 854 18 812 Less imputed interest (262} {262) Less executory costs (3) (3) Net capital lease liability 589 18 6117 Lease liabilities covered by budgetary resources 55 (590) Lease liabilities not covered by budgetary resources Total capital lease liability (607} 18. Contingencies and Commitments Unfunded contingencies Spent nuclear fuel litigation 19,113 15.382 Other ?14 66 Subtotal mu? 1 Funded contingencies Other Total contingencies and commitments 19,147 15,448 28 33 19,115 15,481 The Department is a party in various administrative proceedings, legal actions, and tort claims which may ultimately result in settlements or decisions adverse to the federal government. The Department has accrued contingent liabilities where losses are determined to be probable and the amounts can be estimated. Other signi?cant contingencies exist where a loss is reasonably possible or where the loss is probable and an estimate cannot be determined. in some cases, a portion of any loss that may occur may be paid from Treasury's judgment Fund. The judgment Fund is a permanent, inde?nite appropriation available to pay judgments against the government. The following are signi?cant contingencies: SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL LITIGATION In accordance with the NWPA, the Department entered into contracts with more than 45 utilities in which, in return for payment offees into the NWF, the Department agreed to begin disposal of spent nuclear fuel by lanuary 31, 1998. Because the Department has no facility available to receive SNF under the NWPA, it has been unable to begin disposal ofthe utilities' SN as required by. the contracts. Signi?cant litigation claiming damages For partial breach of contract has ensued as a result ofthis delay. To date, 23 suits have been settled involving utilities that collectively produce about 60 percent ofthe nuclear- generated electricity in the United States. Under the terms ofthe settlements, the judgment Fund, 31 11.5.13. 1304, paid $1.35 billion to the settling utilities for delay damages they have incurred through September 31}. 2011. In addition. thirteen cases have been resolved by final judgments. Six of those cases resulted in an award of no damages by the trial court and seven cases resulted in a total of$328 million in damages to be paid for by the Judgment Fund. The Judgment Fund paid $65 million in prior years for two ofthose cases while four judgments totaling $221 million were paid during FY 2111 1 including one payment for a partial judgment. A $92 million payment for the thirteenth judgment will occur in FY 2012. The Department?s spent nuclear. fuel. litigation. liability is updated to include the effects of final judgments and settlements as well as payments to date from the judgment Fund. Additional payments under these settled and adjudicated cases may be made if the utilities incur additional costs before the Department permanently disposes of the spent nuclear fuel. The Department believes its assumptions and methodology provide a reasonable basis for the contingent liability estimate. 7D Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2D11 US. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS On. March. 7, 2011, the Department of justice notified opposing counsel in the pending SNF cases ofthe terms and conditions under which would be willing to settle those cases referred to below as New Settlements. The terms and conditions are significantly different from those contained in the. pre-2011 settlements. While there are numerous differences between the pre-2011 settlements and New Settlements, the major difference is the use of the SNF acceptance rate published in the 198? Draft Mission Plan to establish the government's liability under these settlements, Le, a 900 MTU annual acceptance rate under the pre-2011 settlements versus a 3000 MTU annual acceptance. rate under the. New Settlements. Thirty ?ve cases remain pending either in the Court of Federal Claims or in the Court oprpeals for the Federal Circuit. Liability is probable in these cases, and in many of these cases orders have already been entered establishing the government?s liability and the only outstanding issue to be litigated is the amount ofdamages to be awarded. The industry is reported to estimate that damages for all utilities with which the Department has contracts ultimately will be at least $50 billion. The Department believes that the. industry?s estimate. is. highly. inflatedand. that the disposition of the 49 cases that have either been settled or subject to a judgment. in the trial. court suggests that the government's ultimate liability is. likely tobe. signi?cantly less than that estimate. Accordingly, based on. these settlement estimates, the total liability estimate is billion. After deducting the amount paid as of September 30, 2011, under these settlements and as a result offinal judgments, a total of$1.6 billion, the remaining liability is estimated to be approximately $19.1 billion. Under current law, any damages or settlements in this litigation will be paid out of the Judgment Fund. The. Department?s contingent liability estimate for SNF litigation is reported net ofamounts paid to date from the judgment Fund. The Department previously reported several developments that made it difficult to reasonably. predict the amount ofthegovernment?s likely liability. The courts have since resolved that jurisdiction for these cases is. appropriate in the Court of Federal Claims and that the government cannot assert the unavoidable delaysdefense, under which, if it were applicable, the government would not be liable for any damages. Furthermore, in fiscal year 2009 the President and the Secretary announced that the repository at Yucca Mountain would not be opened and establisheda Blue Ribbon Commission in january 2010 to evaluate alternatives. Future determinations on how the Department will. meet its obligations underthe standard contracts could materially decrease or increase the spent nuclear fuel litigation liability. ALLEGED EXPOSURES TO RADIOACTIVE ANDJOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES A number ofclass action and?or multiple plaintiff tort suits have been filed against current and former DOE contractors in which the plaintiffs seek damages for alleged exposures to radioactive andfor toxicsubstances as a result of the historic operations ofthe Department's nuclear facilities. The most significant of these cases arise out of operations ofthe facilities at Rocky Flats, Colorado: Hanford, Washington: Mound, Ohio; and Brookhaven, New York. Collectively, inthese cases, damages in excess of $103 billion are sought. These cases are being vigorously defended. Trials have been held in the Rocky Plats litigation and the Hanford litigation. In the Rocky Flats litigation, although the jury returned a substantial verdict in favor ofthe plaintiffs, the court of appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the matter tothe district court on terms favorableto the. defendants. The plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court which defendants opposed. The Court recently called for the views of the Solicitor General. In the Hanford litigation, the parties agreed on trial for 12 "bellwether" plaintiffs. Six "bellwether". plaintiffs' claimswere dismissed. on pre?trial dispositive motions. Following the "bellwether" trials, the jury found in favor of two plaintiffs, and found in favor of the defendants with respect to the remaining four plaintiffs. The court of appeals affirmed the relatively small judgments in favor of two successful "bellwether" plaintiffs, vacated defense. verdicts in favor of three "bellwether".plaintiffs' claims, and. remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Proceedings on the remaining Hanford plaintiffs? claims are. now. continuing through court?ordered mediation and trials. HANFORD SITE NATURAL RESOURCES DAMAGES The Confederated Tribes of the Yakama Nation filed suit in September 2002 against DDEand the. Department of Defense alleging natural resources damages in the 1100.area of the. Hanford site. The. Yakama have since amended their complaint to add the 100 and 300 areas to the suit, alleging additional natural resources damages. In addition, the States ofWashington and Oregon, as well as the Confederated Tribes ofthe Umatilla and the Nez Perce tribe, havejoined the suit. The case is in pre-trial phase. The district court has deniedthe government?s motion to dismiss two ofthe plaintiffs' claims on the ground that they are not ripe, but has stayed any proceedings on one of those claims. .The case remainsstayed while settlement negotiations continue. Potential losses to the Department cannot be estimated at this time. CLEANUP AND WASTE DISPOSAL AT WEST VALLEY The State of New York filed a complaint for a declaratory judgmentand monetary relief, raising claims underthe Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act the West Tlfalley Demonstration. Project Act and the NWPA. This case involves a dispute between the Department and the State ofNew York concerning their respective obligations for cleanup and waste disposal at West Iv'alley. The parties have recently agreed upon a tentative settlement of. these claims that includes claims under the WVDPA for which Congress previously allocated a. 90% share. for the. federal 0.5. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 71 CONSOLIDATED AND. COMBINED FINANCIAL. STATEMENTS government in 1980. Additionally, the settlement only determines cost allocation and not actual clean-up costs, as those decisions will be made. pursuant to separate processes. On July 1, 2010, the parties filed respective motions to approve and enter the Consent Decree which the court later approved. The Consent Decree makes no decisions with respect to the actual cleanup actions for the West llv?alley Demonstration Project andfor the Western New York Nuclear Services Center [Center]. Instead, the Consent Decree commits the United States and New York to follow a complex cost allocation formula for all future actions at the WVDP and the Center, based entirely on the ?nal actions selected by the parties via the appropriate public. process. The. Consent Decree did not resolve a claim for liability ofthe high-level radioactive waste disposal fee pursuant to NWPA. Briefing ofthis claim has been stayed pending scheduling of briefing by the court. Ifthe State of New York pursues this claim. the United States will file a Motion to Dismiss on multiple grounds. While we are confident that our Motion to Dismiss will prevail, it is extremely difficult to. estimate the possible financial risks to the Department. Ifan adverse outcome occurs, the estimated loss could be. approximately $325 million. REFUNDS. TO UTILITY COMPANIES The Bonneville Power Administration and the Western Area Power Administration were parties to proceedings at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that sought refunds for sales into markets operated by the California independent System Operator [150] and the California Power Exchange during the California energy crisis of2000-2001. BPA along with a number of other governmental utilities challenged refund authority over governmental utilities. In BPA v. FERC 422 F.3d 908 [9th Cir. 2005] the Court found that governmental utilities, like BPA and WAPA, were not subject to FERC's. statutory refund authority. As a consequence of the Court?s decision, three California investor-owned utilities along with the State of California ?led breach of contract claims in the US. Court of Federal Claims against EPA and WAPA. The complaints, ?led in March of 200?, alleged that BPA and WAPA were contractually obligated to pay refunds on transactions where the agencies received amounts in excess of mitigated market clearing prices established by FERC. The plaintiffs' contractual breach is premised upon a FERC ?nding that it retroactively reset the prices under the ISO and PK tariffs when it established these mitigated market clearing prices. EPA and WAPA have separately appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court the FERC finding that it retroactively reset the tariff prices. The plaintiffs? claims for relief exceed $300 million. A trial on the liability portion of plaintiff?s contractual breach claim commenced in Iuly 2010 and concluded in August 2010. Post trial briefs were ?led during fall 2010 and closing arguments were held in February 2011. The damages phase of the case will be tried only after the Court rules on the liability portion. No date has been scheduled for the damages phase. EASEMENT ON GOVERNMENT LAND TO CREATE A WIND FARM Wind Company filed a complaint in the US. Court of Federal Claims alleging that the Department unlawfully terminated an agreement that would have granted MNS an easement on government land to construct turbines for the purpose of creating a wind farm at the Nevada Test Site. On june 22, 201 1, following a 2009 opinion ofthe court finding the government liable, but prior to the anticipated scheduling ofa trial on damages, the case was settled for $1.8 million. PADUCAH AND PORTSMOUTH NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES As a result of releases of hazardous substances at the Paducah and Portsmouth Sites, the States of Ohio and Kentucky have potential claims against DOE under CERCLA for damages to natural resource ground water] caused by such releases. DOE has had preliminary discussions with Ohio about a possible settlement of its claims for natural resource damages. at the Portsmouth site. Kentucky. has indicated that it desires a. ?tolling? agreement with respect to potential claims for natural resource damages at the Paducah site. A tolling agreement would suspend the statute oflimitations for the filing of the state?s claims for a mutually agreeable period oftime. The Department will continue its discussions with the states about their potential claims for natural resource damages. Although the Department will be liable for at least some natural resource damages at the sites, it is unable to prepare an estimate ofsuch damages and has not included a provision for damages in the consolidated ?nancial statements. LITIGATION ARISING FROM THE DECISION TO ABANDON THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY LICENSING Actions were filed relating to the Department?s decision to withdraw with prejudice its pending application before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a construction authorization to build a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. One ofthese actions was filed with the NRC challenging the Department?s motion to withdraw with prejudice the license application for construction of Yucca Mountain. The other six actions were ?led in the US. Court oprpeals for the District of Columbia. The NRC's hearing tribunal, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, issued an order that denied DOE's motion to withdraw its license application. In Iune of2010, the Commission, the body with final authority over NRC decision-making invited briefing from the Department and others on whether it should review and reverse, or uphold, the Board's decision. On September 9, 2011, the Commission issued its decision in which the Commission announced it was split evenly on the question whether the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. had properly. 72 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 0.5. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND. COMBINED. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. refused to allow the Department?s motion to withdraw the Yucca Mountain construction license application with prejudice, and unanimously. held that "budgetary limitations? required the Board to dispose ofpending matters by the end of the 2011 fiscal year and to document the history ofthe adjudicatory process. On September 30, 2011, the Board issued a memorandum and order suspending the licensing proceeding due. to uncertainty regarding the availability of future appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for future proceedings and a lack of staff to continue the proceeding since the President?s fiscal year 2012 budget request for Yucca Mountain high-level waste activities did not include a request for any full-time equivalent positions. In 2010, four petitions for review were filed in the. 0.5.. Court oprpeals for the District of Columbia Circuit relating to the. Department's withdrawal motion filed with. the NRC, which the court later consolidated for future litigation. The petitioners alleged they suffered harm so long as high level nuclear waste is stored at DUE facilities located in the States ofSouth Carolina and Washington [the Savannah. River and Hanford facilities, respectively]. . They alleged that, ifa permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, were constructed and operated, the waste stored in South Carolina and Washington would eventually be transported to, and disposed ofin, the Yucca Mountain repository. In those actions, the government's response brief was due July 28, 2010, but that same day, the court granted. the government's motion to vacate the briefing schedule until resolution of the administrative litigation pending before the NRC. The court later set a briefing schedule and on lanuary 3, 2011, the government filed its brief. Oral argument was held on March 22, 2011 and on july 1, 2011, the court ruled that because the petitioners' claims were not ripe. for adjudication, thecourt could not decide the claims and dismissed all petitions for lack ofjurisdiction. In two additional matters related to the Yucca Mountain license withdrawal, two nuclear utility trade groups sought to review, remand or vacate the Department's decision not to suspend the utility quarterly payments into the Nuclear Waste Fund until there was a final program to implement spent nuclear waste disposal and not to undertake a prompt review of the fee adequacy in light ofthe termination ofthe Yucca Mountain licensing. The court consolidated these petitions and set oral argument for December 6, 2010. However, on November 1, 2010, Secretary Chu issued his determination that based on review of the fee adequacy, there was no ?reasonable basis at this time? to propose an adjustment to the fee. The court cancelled oral argument and dismissed the action as moot on December 13, 2010.. After the court dismissed the trade groups' first fee review challenge, in 2011. they filed new petitions that were later consolidated, this time seeking review ofthe Secretary?s November 1, 2010 determination that no adjustment to the fee was required. In these actions, the petitioners and the government have filed their opening briefs and oral arguments are. set for January 12,. 2012. PURCHASE POWER AND TRANSMISSION COMMITMENTS AND IRRIGATION ASSISTANCE The PMAs have entered into commitments to sell expected generation for future dates. When the PMAs forecast a resourceshortage based. on expected obligations and. the historical record, they take a variety of steps to cover the shortage. Ifappropriate, the PMAswill enterintolong- term commitments to purchase power for future delivery. The PMAs record expenses associated with these purchases in the periods that power is received. As directed by legislation, EPA is required to make cash distributions. to Treasury for original construction costs of certain Paci?c Northwest irrigation projects that have been determined to. be beyond the. irrigators? ability to pay. These irrigation distributions do not specifically relate to power generation. In establishing power rates, particular statutory provisions guide the assumptions that EPA makes as to the amount and timing of such distributions. Accordingly, thesedistributions are. recorded as program costs when paid. Future irrigation assistance payments are scheduled over a maximum of 66 years since. the time the irrigation facilities were completed and placed in service. EPA is required by the Grand Coulee Dam Third Power Plant Act to demonstrate that reimbursable costs will be returned to the Treasury from BPA within the period prescribed by law. .BPA is required to make a similar demonstration for the costs ofirrigation projects to the extent the costs have been determined to be beyond the irrigators? ability to repay. These requirements are met by conducting power repayment studies including schedules of distributions at the proposed rates to demonstrate repayment ofprincipal within the allowable repayment. period. Irrigation assistance. excludes $40.3 million for Teton Dam, which failed prior to completion and for which EPA has no obligation to recover these costs. The following table summarizes future purchase power and transmission commitments and irrigation assistance. The table includes firm purchase power agreements of known cost that are currently in place to assist in meeting expected future obligations under long-term power sales contracts. 2012 258 1 2013 236 139 2014 159 I52 2015 .101 85 2016 86 ll?r 2017+ .219 2,599 .Total . . . 1,059 315 . 3,003 0.5. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 73 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The Northwest Power Act directs EPA to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife resources to the extent they are affected by federal hydroelectric projects on the Columbia River and its tributaries. BPA makes expenditures and incurs other costs for ?sh and wildlife projects that are consistent with the Northwest Power Act and that are consistent with the Paci?c Northwest Power and Conservation Council?s Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. in addition, certain fish species are listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered. EPA is financially responsible for expenditures and other costs arising from conformance with the ESA and certain biological opinions (Bi0p} prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in furtherance ofthe, ESA. total commitment including timing of payments under the Northwest Power Act, BSA, and BiOp is not ?xed or determinable. However, the current estimate oflong-term ?sh and wildlife agreements. with a contractual commitment which EPA has entered is $1.03 billion. These agreements will expire at various dates between fiscal years 21318 and 2025. 74 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2D11 US. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 19. Earmarked Funds FY. 2011 BALANCE SHEET ASSETS Fund balance with Treasury 2 5 1,535 1,328 2,870 Investments and related interest, net 26,728 4,587 1,606 294 2 33,217 Accounts receivable, net 3,261 829 3 4,093 Direct loans and loan guarantees, net 1 1 inventory123 General property plant and equipment, net 7,458 27 7,485 Regulatory assets - - - 12,898 - 12,898 Other assets 2 50 3,316 2 3,371} Total Assets 29,993 . 4,642 . 1,606 26,444 . 1,372. 64,057 LIABILITIES AND, NET, POSITION Accounts payable 3 2 127 516 1% 14 659 Debt 18,149 18,149 Deferred revenues and other credits 29,990 - - 1,193 3 31,186 Environmental cleanup and disposal liabilities 14,377 l2 14,389 Pensions and other actuarial liabilities 1 - - 57 59 Obligations under capital leases 590 591} Other liabilities 4,035 18 4,054 Contingencies and commitments . . .- . . . - . . . - . . Unexpeuded appropriations 3 18 21 Cumulative results of operations - (9,863} 1,606 1,856 1.318 (5,083) . .Total Liabilities and Net Position 3; 29,993 4,542 1,506 26,444 1,372 54,057 STATEMENT OF NET COST Program costs 18 (1 12) 4,1 13 161 4,180 Less earned revenues (29) (317} - (4,854) (3.371) (8,571) Net program costs 8 (1 1) (4291 - 8 (741) (3,210} 14,391) Costs not assigned (2) 904 13 915 Net cost of operations (13} 475 . (723} (3,210) STATEMENT OF CHANG ES 1N NET POSITION Cumulative results of operations, beginning balance 19,463) 1,601 2,093 1,147 (4,622) Appropriations used . . .- . . . - . . . - . . .Non?exchange revenue 5 2 7 Donations and forfeitures ofeash - - - 9 - 9 Transfers ini'(out) without reimbursement (13) 40 (993) 276 (6911) lmputed ?nancing 1 1 Other - 35 - 14 (3,322) (3,273) Net cost of operations 13 (475} 728 3,21 0 3,476 Cumulative results of operations, ending balance 3; . (9,363] 1,606 1,856 1,318 (5,083) Uneapended appropriations. beginning balanee - - - 6 12 18 Appropriations received Other adjustments 1 Appropriations used - - - t4) (4) (8) Unexpended. appropriations, ending balance - - - 3 13 21 US. Department of" Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 75 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BALANCE SHEET ASSETS Fund balance with Treasury Investments and related interest, net Accounts receivable, net Direct loans and loan guarantees, net In ventory, net General property plant and equipment, net Regulatory assets Other assets Total Assets LIABILITIES. AND NET POSITION Accounts payable Debt Deferred revenues and other credits Environmental cleanup. and disposal liabilities Pensions and other actuarial liabilities Obligations under capital leases Other liabilities Contingencies and commitments Unexpended appropriations Cumulative results of operations Total Liabilities and Net Position STATEMENT OF NET COST Program costs Less earned revenues Net program costs Costs not assigned Net cost of operations STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET. POSITION Cumulative results of operations, beginning balance Appropriations used Non?exchange revenue Donations and forfeitures of cash Transfers -. inr?tout) without. reimbursement lrnputed ?nancing Other Net cost of operations Cumulative results of operations, ending balance Unexpended appropriations. beginning balance Appropriations received Appropriations used Unexpended appropriations, ending balance NUCLEAR WASTE FUND FY2010 4 3 5 3 3 1,677 3 1,063 3 2.754 24,566 4.975 1,601 .195 .. .. .. - 31,337 3.419 523 13 3,965 .191 7,610 22 7,632 - - . 10,073 - 10,073 1 2,932 2.933 27,990 3 4,930 3 1,601 3 23,169 3 1,196 3 53,936 ..17,331 .. .. .. - 17,331 27.973 - 1,093 5 29,376 .- 14.303 ..14,314 .976 (9,463} 1,601 2,093 1 147 14,622) 27,990 3 4,930 3 1,601 3 23,169 3 1,196 3 53,936 .99 3 .1135) 3.. .4245 3. 100 3 4,309 (1301 (242} (4,269} (26} {4,6671 (31) 3 1377; 3 - 5 (24) 3 74 3 (353) (2) 364 (13) 349 1331 3 437 3 - 3 {37} 3 74 3 491 3 19,46313 1.594 3 2,036 3 1,145 3 {4.6331 .- .. .(33) 25 . .. - (23.11) .462 . .. - . . .12 . . 15 433 33 (437} 37 174} (4911 . 3 (9,463) 3 1,601 3 2,093 3 1,147 3 (4,622110} (13The NWPA requires the owners and generators of nuclear waste to pay their share ofthe NWF and, to that end, establishes a fee for electricity generated and sold by civilian nuclear power reactors which the Department must collect and annually assess to determine its adequacy. A special fund within 'l?reasury was created to account for the collection of fees. Fees are invested in Treasury 76 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2Di?l US, Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS securities and any interest earned is available to pay costs incurred by the NWF. The NWPA requires annual financial statements to be prepared as well as reporting of financial performance measures such as the maintenance ofliquid reserves and investment strategies. AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND The Energy Policy Act of 1992 established the fund to pay for the costs ofdecontamination and decommissioning ofgascous diffusion facilities through collection of revenues derived from domestic utility assessments and government appropriations. The Energy Policy Act also requires that balances in the DSLD fund be invested in Treasury securities and any interest earned would be available to pay the costs ofenvironmental remediation. The Energy Policy Act requires annual financial statements to be prepared as well as periodic reporting of financial performance measures relating to fee receipt and investment income. U.S. Upon privatization of USEC on July 28, 1998, OMB and Treasury designated the Department as successor to USEC for purposes ofdisposition of balances remaining in the USEC fund. These funds are invested in Treasury securities. POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIDNS The PMAs are funded primarily from four sources. These include contract and borrowing authority, direct receipts generated from the sale of power, annual appropriations from the Department ofthe Interior's Reclamation Fund, and appropriations from Treasury's General Fund. In most instances, the annual appropriations from the Reclamation Fund and the General Fund are repaid to interior and Treasury, respectively, from the receipts generated from power sales. 20. Statement of Net Cost -. Gross Cost by Strategic Objective Transform Our Energy Systems Deploy the technologies we have EB 13,116 8 8931 Discover the new solutions we need 4.004 3.968 Lead the National conversation on energy 195 225 Total program costs for transform our energy, systems Eli 11315 1 1,924 The Science and Engineering Enterprise Extend our knowledge of the natural world 55 3,5 I2 513 3,134 Deliver new technologies to advance our mission l,338 1.142 Sustain a world-leading technical workforce 22 18 Total program costs for the science and engineering enterprise '5 4,8712 '5 4,294 Secure Our Nation Support the U.S. nuclear stockpile and future military needs 55 6,18? 3 5,048 Reduce global nuclear dangers 1,?51 1,?15 Apply our capabilities for other critical national security missions 1,192 1,18? Support responsible civilian nuclear power development and fuel cycle management 291 336 Complete environmental remediation of our legacy and active sites 7.34? Total program costs for secure our nation 15 16,698 15,691 Total program costs for strategic objectives 38,885 31,909 US. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TRANSFORM OUR ENERGY Goal: Catalyse the timely, material, and efficient transformation. of. the nation?s energy systemand secure. US. leadership in clean energy technologies. Objectives include: a Deploy the. technologies. we have - Advance new approaches for improving the ef?ciency of our nation?s homes, buildings, facilities and vehicles. Discover the new solutions we need Pursue technologies that can have the greatest impact on national energy goals and avoid technologies of limited applicability or resource. a Lead the national conversation on energy Ensure the processes of informing. shaping, and supporting energy and related environmental policies are underpinned by sound techno?economic principles and analyses. THE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE Goal: Maintain a vibrant US. effort in science and engineering as a cornerstoneofour economic prosperity with clear leadership in strategic areas. Objectives include: Extend our knowledge of the natural world - Address fundamental questions in the physical sciences and produce novel hardware and theoretical and analytical tools with applications well beyond the specific. science. a Deliver new technologies to advance our mission - Foster the development of new. technologies to. make. major contributions to our energy, environment, and security missions. Sustain a world-leading technical workforce - invest in current and future scientists by creating conditions that allow today's researchers to be as productive as possible, as well as ensure an adequate supply of. tomorrow?s researchers. SECURE OUR NATION Goal: Enhance nuclear security through defense, nonproliferation, and environmental efforts. Objectives include: 0 Support the us. nuclear stockpile and future military needs Keep the stockpile safe and reliable without further nuclear testing. 0 Reduce global nuclear dangers Maintain effective and credible international nuclear safeguards and export controls. 0 Apply our capabilities for other critical national security missions Provide the scientific and technical knowledge to enable national security agencies to. understand and counter dangers arising. from foreign nuclear weapons programs, the spread of nuclear capabilities to additional. countries,.and the potential exploitation of nuclear materials by terrorists. I Support responsible civilian nuclear power development and fuel cycle management Support the development ofa new International framework for nuclear cooperation and strengthen international safeguards and. export controls. to support safe. and. secure deployment of nuclear power globally. 0 Complete environmental remediation of our legacy and active sites Reduce the footprint of our contaminated sites while bringing to bear the Department?s formidable researchand development assets to develop and deploy transformational technologies. 73 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2Di?l US. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 21. Earned Revenues Fv2o11 Transform Our Energy Systems Power Marketing Administrations (268) (4.229) (4.497) Loan Programs (161) (164) (11) (336) Petroleum reserve oil sales (3,566) (3,566) Other Earned revenues for transform our energy systems (429) (7,960) (11) (8,400) The Science and Engineering Enterprise Isotopes program (1) (31) - (32) Earned Revenue for the science and engineering enterprise . (1) . - . (32) Secure Our Nation Nuclear,WasteFund Dt??eD Fund (I42) (175) (317) Other (23) (6) (29) Earned revenues for secure our nation . . (1,505) . . . . (388) . . . . 2,1118 . . . . . l(3?75) Reimbursableprograms Other programs FERC Wm] (3l7) Other 33* (3) or) (4o) Earned revenues for other programs (3) (354) - (357) Total earned revenues (5,471) (9,868) 2,007 13,332) FY 2010 Transform Our. Energy. Systems Power Marketing Administrations (I49) 55 (169(1) 55 (3,839) Loan Programs (94) (78) 13 (159) Petroleum reserve oil sales - (6) - (6) Other - (11) - (11) Earned revenues for transform our energy systems (243) (3,785) 13 (4,015) The Science, and Engineering Enterprise Isotopes program - (22) - (22) Earned Revenue for the science and engineering enterprise - 22) - (22) Secure Our Nation Nuclear Waste Fund (l,245) (7?06) 1,821 (130) Fund (169) (73) (242) Other (13) (2) - (15) Earned revenues for secure ottr nation (1,427) (781) 1,821 (387) Reimbursable programs (3,507) (662) (4,169) Other programs FERC 333 (303) (303) Oll'lttl' ?"?333 (2) (58) (so) Earned revenuesforother. programs (2) Total earned revenues (5,179) (5,611) . 1,834 (8,956) US. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 79 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS POWER MARKETING The Department's four PMAs market electricity generated primarily by federal hydropower projects. Preference for the sale ofpower is given to public bodies and cooperatives. Revenues from selling power and transmission services are used to repay Treasury annual appropriations, interest on the capital investment repayment, borrowings from Treasury, operation and maintenance costs as well as other payment obligations. Revenues collected by the Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power Administrations on behalf of other agencies are reported as custodial activity [see Note LOAN PROGRAMS The loan program is required to collect administrative fees for the Title XVII loan program from the borrowers. Those fees are recognized as earned when an expense is accrued. Fees of $36 million and $25 million were earned as of September 30, 2011 and September 30, 2010, respectively. The program also earns interest on the loans made to borrowers and on the cash balances held with Treasury. Interest on cash balances of$161 million and $94 million and on loans from the borrower of$128 million and $53 million were earned as of September 30, 2011 and September 30, 2010, respectively. Amortization of the subsidy [see Note 7} is an adjustment made to the earned revenue and was million and $13 million as of September 30, 2011 and September 30, 2010, respectively. NUCLEAR WASTE FUND The NWPA requires the Department to assess fees against owners and generators ofhigh?level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel to fund the costs associated with management and disposal activities under the Act. Fees of $749 million and $254 million were assessed as of September 30, 2011, and September 30, 2010, respectively. Interest earned on fees owed and on accumulated funds in excess of those needed to pay current program costs totaled $1,296 million and $1,19.7 million as of September 30, 2011, and September 30, 2010, respectively. Adjustments are made annually to defer the recognition of revenues until earned when costs are incurred] for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management program. Udell FUND The Department assessed fees to domestic utilities to pay for the costs for decontamination and decommissioning the Department's gaseous diffusion facilities used for uranium enrichment services. Accumulated funds in excess of those needed to pay current program costs are invested in Treasury securities. interest earned on these investments totaled $142 million and $169 million as of September 30, 2011 and September 30, 2010, respectively. Gains on the transfer ofUranium to USEC in exchange for environmental clean-up services totaled $125 million as of September 30, 2011, and $23 million as ofSeptember 30, 2010 respectively. REIMBURSABLE PROGRAMS. The Department performs work for other federal agencies and private companies on a reimbursable work basis and on a cooperative work basis. The Department?s. policy is to establish prices for materials and services provided to public entities at the Department?s full cost. In some cases, the full cost information reported by the Department in accordance with SFFAS No. 4, Monogerioi CostAccountiny Concepts and Stondordsfor the Federal Government, exceeds revenues. This results from implementation ofprovisions contained in the Economy Act of 1932, as amended; the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, which provide the Department with the authority to charge customers an amount less than the full cost of the product or service. Costs attributable to generating intragovernmental reimbursable program revenues were $3,692 million and $3,688 million as of September 30, 2011, and September 30, 2010, respectively. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION FERC is an independent regulatory organization within the Department that regulates essential aspects of electric, natural gas and oil pipeline industries, and non?federal hydropower industries. It ensures that the rates, terms, and conditions ofservice for segments ofthe electric and natural gas and oil pipeline industries are just and reasonable: it authorizes the construction of natural gas pipeline facilities; and it ensures that hydropower licensing administration and safety actions are consistent with the public interest. FERC assesses most ofits administrative program costs as an annual charge to each regulated entity [see Note 22). PETROLEUM RESERVE OIL SALES In FY 2011, the President ordered a drawdown ofthe Strategic Petroleum Reserve to offset the disruption in global oil supplies caused by unrest in Libya and other countries. The result was a sale of 30 million barrels of crude oil. The crude oil had a historical cost of $954 million and was sold for $3.2 billion. In FY 2011, the Department also sold all ofthe approximate 2 million barrels of heating oil from the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve storage sites. This heating oil had a historical cost of $79 million and was sold for $222 million. These sales receipts are being used to purchase a cleaner burning, ultra?low sulfur diesel. FY 2011 revenues also include an additional gain of $93 million resulting from the final settlement of equity interests from the Department?s FY 1998 sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1, Elk Hills. 00 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 0.5. Department of EnErgy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 22. Other Programs Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Program costs (Note 21,1 Less earned revenues Environment, safety and health Inspector General Other programs Program costs [Note 2 LES-F. EBFUECI Total net cost for other programs 303 (303(4m (60) (19) (46) 469 443 23. Costs Applied to Reduction of Legacy Environmental Liabilities Costs applied to reduction oflegacy environmental liabilities. are. current year operating expenditures. for. the remediation of contaminated facilities and wastes generated from past operations. These amounts are 24-. Costs Not Assigned excluded from current year. program expenses since the. expense was accrued in prior years when the Department recorded the environmental liabilities. - Iii: Spent nuclear fuel was] Judgment Fund payments . . EN I Change in estimates ?e 1 Current year spent nuclear fuel contingency costs - thin-15; azsi Change 1n . . . Changes in contractor pension and PRB estimates Change in unfunded safety and health liabilitiesm?m Hum 35} [N11th 35] Change in occupational illness program Subtitle Subtitle Other Judgment Fund payments Other Total costs not assigned [Note 25} 7'98 Eli 2T5 3,73l 2,235 5i} 4,529 2,510 10,184 (9,030) 2,052 3,605 150 123 1,996 4,430 2.304 666 24 - T3 21,235 2,377 CHANGES IN CONTRACTOR PENSION AND PRB ESTIMATES The changes in contractor. pension and PRB estimates are. comprised of all the. components of. contractor pension and PRB. net periodic costs except for service costs. interest costs; expected return on plan assets: {gainjfloss due to curtailments, settlements, or. special. termination bene?ts; net prior service costf[ net [gainjfloss including impacts. of changes in actuarial assumptions]. . Service costs are not included since they are recorded by program [see Notes. 16 and COMPENSATION PROGRAM FOR OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESSES The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act authorized. compensation for. certain. illnesses suffered by employees. ofthe. Department, its predecessor agencies, and contractors who performed work for the. nuclear weapons program. Subtitle. covers illnesses associated. with. exposure to radiation, beryllium, or silica. In general, each eligible employee. and survivors of deceased employees will receive compensation for the disability or. death ofthat employee in the. amount of $150,000. plus the costs of medical care. 0.5. Department of" Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 81 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The National Defense Authorization Act of 2005 amended the EEOICPA to include Subtitle E, Contractor Employee Compensation. This amendment replaces Subtitle ofthe EEOICPA, which provided assistance for the Department in obtaining state workers? compensation benefits. The amendment grants workers? compensation benefits to covered employees and their families for illness and death arising from exposure to toxic substances at the Department?s facilities. The amendment also makes it possible for uranium workers, as de?ned under Section 5 ofthe Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, to receive compensation under Subtitle for illnesses due to toxic substance exposure at a uranium mine or mill covered under that Act. As ofSeptember 30, 2005, the law makes payments under these programs the responsibility ofthe Department of Labor. Therefore, the liability is recorded by the Department ofLabor and changes in the total liability are recognized by the Department as an imputed cost and an imputed financing source. The liability estimate increased due to an increased emergence ofcaneer SEC claims, increased number ofprojected approvals for Part cases. higher projected medical costs, and a lower interest rate used to discount losses. 32 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2Di?l US. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 25. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget RESOURCES. USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIES . . . 10- 1f: Obllgattons Incurred .. . . t-Efu Less Net obligations [imputed financing from costs absorbed by others . . . . . . 7 Increase in occupanonal illnesses 1ab1hty OPM imputed costs I. '3 Payments made from Treasury's udgmenl Fund Total imputed costs absorbed by others Transfers?indent) without reimbursement Nuclear Waste Fund offsetting receipts, deterred Other Total resottrces used to finance activities OF OPERATIONS Resources that ?nance the. acquisition. of. assets Credit program collection and receipts that increase liabilities Resources that fund expenses recognized in prior periods Other resources and adjustments RESOURCES. IN CURRENT PERIOD Contractor Pension and PRB plans . . lC(mtractor pens1on and PRB esun-tate changes i - - 2 Current year pen s1on and PRB serv1ce costs . . "d - Curran We? and PRB employer contributions Total pension and PRB plans . . . . . . t' Change in environmental 1ab111ty estu'natesm'm" I I Change in spent nuclear fuel contingency mm? I'T?Jotcs I. and Change in unfunded safety and health liabilities Change. in. other. unfunded liabilities Depreciation of property, plant and equipment Revaluation of assets and liabilities for loans Other amortization 1 lNuteIl] Gain on sale of SPRO 01] Other NET COST OF OPERATIONS Less spending authority from offsetting collections and recoveries RESOURCES. USED. TO. FINANCE ACTIVITIES. NOT. PART. OF. NET. COST. Change in budget arv resources obligated for orders but not yet provided Total. resources. used to. ?nance items not part of Net Cost of Operations NET COST OF ITEMS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE OR GENERATE Amortization of premiums and discounts on Treasury investments Total net cost ofitems that do not require or generate resources in current period 3 43.000 3 33,341 (11,2541 {9,3531 (1306} (3,305] 3 30,340 3 40,233 4,300 3 5,090 110' 123 322 225 3 3.233 3 3,494 (242) 201 3.240 2,300 .10 . 33,092 3 43,344 4432 3 {7,310} .9050) . .{1159} L430 304 (7,343) {0,5021 2,210 (30; 3. (3,232} 3 (211,231) 2.0.32 3 3,003 1,179 1,130 (1.332) {1,113} 3 1,374 3 3,023 10.134 02,030} 3,231 2,233 130 123 . 121 . . 10031 L243 L203 {1,0391 (10) 13 133 . 100 (2,234) - (612) {1,548} .3 14,135 3. (4,2911) 3 43,990 3 23,323 NUCLEAR WASTE FUND OFFSETTING RECEIPTS, DEFERRED The Department defers the recognition of revenues related to the fees paid by owners and generators ofspent nuclear fuel, and the interest earned on the invested balance of these funds, to the extent that the receipts exceed current year costs for developing and managing a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel generated by civilian reactors. In addition, market value adjustments for Treasury securities of the NWF are not recognized as revenues in the current period unless redeemed by the Department. The gross amount of receipts and interest collected are reported as offsetting receipts on the Combined Statements ofBudgetury Resources. Therefore, a reconciling amount is reported for the portion of the offsetting receipts for which revenues are not recognized in the current period. US. Department of" Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 83 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 26. Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources The Statements ofBuo?getory Resources is presented on a combined, rather than a consolidated, basis in accordance with OMB guidance. Direct Category A {by quarter) 96 14.564 1 1,904 Category (by project) 25,884 32,868 Sub-total direct obligations incurred 40,448 44,7?2 Exempt from. apportionment . . . . . . 3,773 Reimbursable CategoryA[by_quarler) Category B. (by project] . . . . . 4,698 . . . 43?] Sub-total reimbursable obligations incurred 4,737 4,796 Total obligations incurred 48,906 53,341 Loan funds reserved for Future defaults 4,555 3,292 US. Enrichment Corporation Fund l,567 Strategic Petroleum Reserve mandatory appropriations not apportioned 3,238 Prior year deobligations in excess of apportioned amount 44 Energy Supply and Conservation unapportioned balances Reimbursable worki?collections in excess of amount anticipated 4 Expired appropriations and other amounts not apportioned l3 4 Total unohligated balances not available man's? 7,848 4,90? Unobligated balances not available represent budgetary resources that have not been apportioned to the Department. Undelivered orders 55 45,709 49,594 Accounts payable and other liabilities 8,1?5 8,05] Total. unpaid obligations 3? .__s3,334 s. 57,645 Appropriations received on the Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources 29,947 27,065 Less: Special and trust fund appropriated receipts (900) (862) Appropriated capital owed 3} Other Appropriations received on the Statements of Changes in Net Position 33 29.031 26,137 34 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2D11 US, Department of Enorgy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources as published 35 66,650 53,341 (3,305) 35 31,99? OMB adjustments. made to exclude: U.S. Enrichment Corporation Financing disbursements Other 2 4 2 4 Budget of the United States Government 65,085 53,345 (3,303) 30,7?8 The fiscal year 2010 Combined Statements ofBudgetmy BORRUWING AUTHORITY Resources are reconciled to the President?s Budget that was published in February 2011.. The President's. Budget containing actual fiscal year 201 1 balances is expected to be published and available on the OMB web site, in February 2012. Budgetary resources and obligations incurred are reconciled to the Departmental balances as published in the Appendix to the Budget; distributed offsetting receipts and net outlays are reconciled to the Departmental balances in the Federal Program by Agency and Account section of the Analytical Perspectives Volume ofthe President?s Budget. 27. Custodial Activities The Department?s borrowing authority reflected in the Combined Statements ofBudgetory Resources represents the amount of borrowing authority for the current fiscal year's obligations, which may or may not have been converted to cash. The borrowing authority available at September 30, 2011 and September 30, 2010; is $12.27 billion and $6.14 billion for the Department?s loan program; $4.76 billion and $5.19 billion for BPA, and $3.09 billion and $3.16 billion for WAPA, respectively. The amounts available are authority that has not been converted to cash. POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS The Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power Administrations are responsible for collecting and remitting to Treasury and the Department ofthe Interior revenues attributable to the hydroelectric power projects owned and operated by the Department of Defense; the Corps; the Department of the interior. Bureau of Reclamation; and the Department ofState, International Boundary and Water Commission. These revenues are reported as custodial activities of the Department. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION FERC is responsible for billing regulated companies annual charges as a custodian for certain federal agencies. These include: 1] the Corps for licensees to provide maintenance and operations of dams owned by the 0.5. and maintenance for operations ofheadwater or other navigable waters owned by the 2] Bureau of Reclamation for the occupancy and use ofpublic lands and national parks owned by the U.S. and for Indian Tribal Trust Funds from licensees for the reservation of lndian land; 3) Treasury for revenues collected based on penalties, interest, and administrative charges for overdue accounts receivables and for civil penalties; and payments to states collected from licensees for the occupancy and use of national forests and public lands from development within the boundaries of any state. 0.5. Department of" Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 85 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Consolidating Schedules U.S. Department of Energy Consolidating Schedules. - Balance Sheets As ofSeptember. 30, 2011 and 2010. {See independent nuditors?report) ASSETS: lntragm?ernmental Assets: Fund Balance with Treasury Investments and Related [ntel'esL Net Accounts Receivable. Net Regulatory Assets Other, Assets Total Intragovernmental Assets Investments and Related Interest. Net Receivable. Net Direct. Loans and Loan Guarantees. Net Inventory. ls'et: Strategic. Petroleum and Home Heating IEli] Reserve Nuclear Materials Other Inventory General Properly. Plant. and Equipment. Net Regulatory. Assets Other Non?Intragoverrimental Assets Total Assets LIABILITIES: lntragovernmental Liabilities: Accounts Payable Debt Del'erl'etl Revelation and Other Credits Other Liabilities Total lntragovernmentnl .iahilities Accounts Payable Loan Guarantee Liability Debt Held by the Public Deferred Revenues and Other Credits Environmental Cleanup and Disposal Liabilities Pension and ICltl?ier Actuarial Liabilities Obligations Under Capital leases Other Non-Intragovernmental Liabilities Contingencies and Commitments Total Liabilities NET. POSITION Ullespended Appropriatiom Appropriations- Earmarked Funds [Snow-ended Appropriations? Other Funds Cumulative Results. of. Operations Cumulative Results oi'therations - Earmarked Funds Cumulative Results of Operations lOther Funds Total Net Position Total Liabilities and Net Position FY2011 . 55 1.535 . 46.130 . . . 471.7120 294 32.00? - . .. .. .3329] - .tla 2.106 .. .. .30? - 5.402 - 5.492 . . - . . 7?3 . .t40} . . .33 55 "1.639 81,300 5F 11,057] . . 87.343 - - 181 - . . . .131 10 511 3.3?2 . . 3.893 5.?31 .. 5.732 - . 20,008 - . 20.663 - 21.042 21.642 - 113 423 - ..536 1458 23.2715 . . 30.740 - . .. .. - . "1.406 - 3,3l? 524 . .. .. 3.340 72 26.444 157.122 {1,657} .. ..131,931 ..104 - 12.336 6.921 - . . . . . . 19.307 - .33 2.550 . .. . .. .. 1.511 12.4sn Inlsn 8 [1.657] . 20.935 12 .453 . 4,323 - -4343 St) .36 - . 5.203 . . .- - 5.763 - [.109 30.526 . . . .. 31.715 - . .. .. 12 250.553" . 250.569 2 30.245 . ..30.3t4.002 3.344 - . -1323 33 . 19.142 . . 19.1115 53 2.4.585 348,440 55 ?1,657! 321,421 .. . 32.702 .. ..31741 - Ls?n {(4.030} - (5.033) (10} {222.109} {222.119} 19 1.859I {191,313} - .. 72 26,444 157,122 ?5 {1:557} 181.981 ss Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 U.S. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FY2019 1.511 5. .. 54.5111 5. . . . . 5 55.249 195 51.2111 - 51.595 1.455 . . . 11.11111 495 5.4511 5.455 - 1114 1451 .1551 5. . 51.215 5. . . 11.11541 5. . . . 95.5111 - - 195 - 195 55 4111 5.495 - 4.1115 2.455 21.11111 21.11111 21.454 21.454 1115 4111 - 515 11 1.5111 22.1159 - 29.551 4.5115 2.9112 459 - 5.421 5.. 25.159 11551 5 1111 11.915 2.951 - 14.541 2 FM [412.1154 . . . . 111251 1.2111 53 33 5.33? {11154) 3?11 111.3615 12 555 4.255 4.1152 4 4 5.915 5.915 1.1195 211.599 - 29.495 5 . . . 255.2115 . . . . . .- 2511.299 2 511 211.545 - 25.4115 - . . . . . . . 485 . . . . .l111 5.451 4.4115 29 15.452 15.451 5 s9 5 21.11111 5 555.441 5 11.11541 5. . . 555.552 15 5 2 45.949 45.9111 2.1195 15.1151 - 14.5221 191 - 1215.2221 - 1215.251) 5 25 5 2.1199 5 1115.91515 - 5. . . 1115,5541 25.159 5. . 159.411 5. . . 11.11541 5. . . . 151.595 U5.DepartmentIJfEnergyAgency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 87. CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS U.S. Department of Energy Consolidating Schedules of Net Cost For the Years. Ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. (See independent nuditors? report) FY2911 STRATEGIC. GOALS: Tran}; Our Energy Systems . . Eli. . . . Eli 13.502 3. . . Lem: Earned Revenue(-4.512) {3.915} .. . . . {3.4009,587 . . . . . - .. The Science and Engineering Enterprise ProgramCosIs . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . .- . . . 4.892 .. . .. {20} .. . . . .4.3?2 Lens: Earned Revenues . . . . . . . - . . . . [32NetCoNtof Science and Engineering Enterprise .. .. . . ..- . .. . . . . . 4,31?? . Secure. Our Nation . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..- .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .- .. .. .. .16.?.133Less: Earned Revenues - I375) .. .. .. .. .. NetCostoi'SecurcDurNaIion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . ..16,356 . . . . . . . .. 16,323 - {1372} 30,3115 [533 .. .. .. .. 30,073 OTHER PROGRAMS: Reimbunsable . . - . . . . . ai?lii . . . Lean: Earned Revenues - {342) 4i} .. . . . {4.16839. Other Program?: ProgramCosIs . . . . .31.613 .. . .. .. . . . Lens: Eill'l'leLiRC?r'UIIUCh I69 . . . .. NetContof?ther Programs - - 469 - . . . . .469. Applicdm - in] {1.313} - .. . . . .{lBSl} Costa N01 Assigned - 13 21.222 - . . . N31 C051 ?(opal-mkms - (3'23) 5 44,??1 [53] .. .. 43,990 83 ."Lgencyr Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FY 2011] - 3.954 3.027 I I .924 (3.832) 57" - 72 .. 7.337 - ?7.909 - 4.3 I 3 4294 {33} [22} - - 4,291 4,272 ..- - 16.154 15.69] - - (387} - - - 15,767 (463) 15,304 - 72 27.895 {432] 27,485 29 I 3 .9 I 5 4.202 4 (43169} - (96] 129? - 33 - {:64 30f: {303) - (1'21) [363{6.515} - I 3} 2,390 23?? - [37] 5 24,342 {482] 23,823 U.S.Department0fEnergy .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS U.S. Department of Energy Consolidating Schedules of Changes in Net Position For the Years Ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 {See independent auditors? report) FY2011 CUMULATIVE RESULTS OPERATIONS: Beginning1 Balances ii 2.093 [222.937] - (220.853) Budgetary,r Financing Sources: Lisetl 2 1. 4 ?3 32.2115 . .. . . . . 31112 Non-Exchange Revenue - - Donations and Fnrleitures of Cash - - Transfers - lniiUut} Without Reimbursement - (283) (14.1302) Other FinancingT Sources {Non-Exehange): Denalionsand Forl'eituresef-Cash . .. . .. . . . . . .'I'I'ansfers - [nitOut] Withnut Reimbursement 1'19} i205] {13] - . [2425,221 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5233 Other - i4 (53(4.364) Total Financing Sources {9'55} 35 33,1561} 35 {53] ?37,641. Net Cost nfOperatinns - 720 [44.721] 53 . (43.990) NetL?hange . . .. . . .. {6,111} .. .. . . Total Cumulative Results of Operations 5 [10} 1,356 ii [229.0481 ii - 5 (227,202) UNEXPENDED. APPROPRIATIONS: Beginning Balances 32 .12 f! 40.901 . .. . . . . 246,999 Budgetary Financing Sources: Appropriations Received 5 - - 29.03l - . . . 29,03] Appropriations Transferred - lniiOut} - - 3 - . Other Adjustments i {549(549) Appropriations Used . .. . .. t2[371.7116131122) Total Budgetary Financing Sources [31 ?le {9,331Total Unexpended Appropriations 29 3 37,731} - Netpusuinn . .. . .19. . .. . 1,359 . {191,313{189,440} 90 .?tgenqrr Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FY2310 3 (4) 3 2.035 3 (233.339{234,952} 3 {12} 3 3 33.334 3 - 3 33.025 (229) 196 - r335.422 5.494 12 {4321 . . . . . (901} .. .. .45..33,394 3. .. .. .3432} 3. .. .. 32.927 - 32 (24.342; 432 . . . . {23.323} 3 3 57 3 14.052 3 - 3 14.104 3 19} 2.093 (222.932) 3 - 3 (220,853) 3 20 3 9 3 55.323 3 - 3. . . .. 55.402 3 - 3 - 3 23.132 5 - 3' . . 26.132 (1.323{33.034{33.325(3.417(3.403} 3 32 3 a 3 46.961 3 - 3 46.999 3.. . 23 . 2,399 .3 [175,976] 3 - 3 (173,354) US. Department ufEnergy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 91 CONSOLIDATEDAND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 0.5. Department of Energy Combining Schedules of Budgetary Resources For the Years Ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 (See. independent anditors?. report) FY 20] BUDGETARY RESOURCES: Unobligated Balance. Brought Forward. October .433 . . 12.309 3 .. . . ..13.309 Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 18? Budget Authority: Appropriations 5 5 I32 29.820 3 .. . . .2934? Borrowing Authority [.048 10.152 .. .. .. 11.200 Contract Authority I233 . .. . . . . 1,288 Spending Authority. from. Ol?fsetting Collections: Earned: Collected . . . . . 290 . . . . . . . . . 5.980 .. . Change in Receivables from Federal Sources ..31 Change in Untilled Customer Orders: Advances Received - 21 58 .. . ..79 Without Advance. from Federal Sources . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . 52E . . . .. . .. .. .534 Subtotal 5 303 55 06:29 3 46.570 .. .. . .. 53.502 Nonexpenditure Transfers. Net. Actual . . . . . . . . . . . . . (94Temporarin not Available Pursuant to Public Law - - (Loci?) Permanently not Available . . . . . - . . . . . . . (Lo-49} . . . (589) . . (2.238} Total Budgetary Resources 315 318 5 5.374 5732?) . STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES: Obligations Incurred: Direct . . . . .298 . . . . . . . .539 . 39.61] ll??tt] Apportionment - 3.70? l4 .. .. .. . 3.721 Reimbursable . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . 628 . . . 4.109 .. . 4.73? Total {Jhligalions Incurred 298 .?ii 4.374 5 43.734 . 48.906. Unobligatctl Balance: Apportioned I9 484 5.?6.233 Exempt from Apportionment . . . . . . - . . . . . . . .29 Unobligatcd Balancc not Available I 1846 .. .. . .. . .. .7343 Total?tatus of Budgetary Resources 318 . . 5.374 . 57.329 3., .. 63.021 CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE: Obligated Balance. Net: Unpaid Obligations. Brought Forward. October 46 5 2.898 .. . . ..57.645 Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources. Brought Forward. October - . . . . . . . . . (6.234} . .. . . . {6.591) Total Unpaid Uhligated Balance. Net. October I 3 4t?: 2.54l 48.40? . 51.054, Obligations Incurred . . . . 398 . . . . . . . 4.874 . . . 43.734 . . . .. . ?48.906 Less: Gross Outlays {307) (4.7 (4146(52.480) Less: ,Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations. ActuaI . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . (184IChange in Uncolleeted Payments from Federal Sources - (5542.692 . . . 44.002 3. . . . 46.728 ()hligated Balance. Net. End of Period: Unpaid Obligations 1'3.060 . . 50,790 3 .. . .. .. 53.384 Less: Cuslolricr Payn'icnts from Federal Sources - (308?) .. .. . .. . Total, Unpaid l[liriligated Balance. Net- End of Period 34 2.692 44,002 5 46.728 NET OUTLAYS: Gross . . . . . 307 . . . . . . . 4.7 I 2 . 4145 3% . Less: Ol?l?sclting Collections {298) (p.044) .. .. . .. . (10.502) Less: Distributed th?setting Receipts [40} (622) (6.1544) .. .. .. {7.306} Net (Jutlays t3l} 33 {7'00 34.?73 3 .. . . ..34.672 92 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy 55 1m: 1231; [93515 nodag buggy KEJQUH .40 'g'n ?66 I 55 9313' SUI FF ?33 I 2956?: {8'39} (EMU 339.17 3; 333 FED-I ?55 {19?93' gt?g'ig [1:15:39] 1: (LEE) - MD fr 5F EU. (954 I (mgr?) .. 5? I (I {9?65} 91791}? (at) - [?14911] 68317 ($351} I 55 (HUI) f??il INVE- ?33 ?9509 ?199 ?0615? ES ?33 9061" 35-: ?81 IL 9917 EI 688T 55 IEI?irw ER ?176.31? .. 599' H5, @5999 5?14 Fl.? Fl: {mu-ESQDW 5F t?ng REE) - 862 0102 Ad CINV CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS U.S. Department of Energy Consolidating Schedules of Custodial Activities For the Years Ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 (See independent auditors? report) FY 21'? 1 SOURCES OF COLLECTIONS: Collections: Fewer Marketing Administrations Eli - 3 [9 - .. 819 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 48 - - - .48 Total Cash 43 319 - - .. 367 Accrual Adjnatnicnl (2H) - - - [20] Total Custodial Revenue .. 2.8 .. 319 - - 84'? DISPOSITION OF REVENUE: Transferred to Others: Bureau of Reclamation {131 (491] Department of the Treasury f_ 19} - - {306] Army Coins; of Engineers; [54} {63] Others to} - Deereageftlnerease} in Aim'mnts in he Transferred 19 19 Net Custodial Activityr -- 94. Agency' Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 U.S.. Department of Energy. CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - 399 :13: 55 STE :5 - - 927 (1: {4m} - (4m .. (35) mm - .. .14: 133) - .. .413) - (18: US. Department ufEnergy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 95 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (RSSI) Supplementary Stewardship Reporting on. Research. and. Development Costs. for FiscalYears. 2011 through. 2009 UNAUDITED See accompanying Auditors?. Report. FY2011 (I. IN STRATEGIC. DIRECT. DEPRECIIATION. G?l?l? STREITEGIC.GIBJ CTIVES GPRA UNIT 8: OTHER L'ieuthernial 'l'eehntiltigy . . . - .?Discover the new solutions we need Bit-man and 4 5 t'lur Clem: uul 2 liner-LI? Natural Deploy 1lie quhh?l?gi?? we have P?n?cum I Elertricily Delivery and. Energy Reliability 4 Bonneville Power 8 - linerpv Physics T33 353 Harrie E-Lne 4y Sciences [.557 I I I I litlund Nil-1 ?r?m'lil Biological anal Research JUI 41'! 347' ?mm-Ii: ?mi NIu-lmn' I?hyl?irh .1 I 7 14-; am nee: n11: INC lHultilie l'rugrarii ll - l? I 383 JHU Deliver new technologies to advance tJIll' . . 15 toluglcal .?uid Iuivtl?mnueutul ReHearch 4HI 5-1 53-5 27m. 3 l5 Seuure l{liar Reduce global nueleiir dangers Nonproliferation RAH) 4-2 2 -l4 . 54 3.937 1'93 4.731) SoIar Energy 33 Eli .15 3-1 Wind Energy EH 4 J2 Geothermal 3 -l and lluel IC'ell Technologies l4 l0? nix?m?I?r Ihc ?cw Im?l Advanced Renenn?ll Projeeth Agenuy Energy (1-1 (1-1 Bin-nines and Biotel'inei'y 8 Water Power ?4 2 2 I -1-r.ImRfm-m nun Vehicle 'I'echnciltigieia . . . IUU . . . . . l3 . . .113 Energy Suit-meme. New Nuelear Teehlinlugien? 55 (13 ("lean C'oaI . . . . . . . . T?l . . .324 Advanced l'trlallulhcluring 3-12 5 57" Building 'I'eclinulogieNatural Gas Technology 3 l3 Deploy the technologies we have 3 1 4 Delivery and. [Energy Reliability 35 5 4H ??13 Bonneville Power - 4 Summit I'eHIInnsiliIe civilian nuclear Iluwer Cycle Reel) and International liruriiewtirk I39 3] llhl] development and Iuel cycle Hiacpnhal Directed Htucltpile ?W'orl: ?l 4-43 Fit-learn ('anipaign 7.47 Phil [Engineering ['ainpaign (a tlu?. S. Iiucleal \tnL'Lpilc aiul I'utuie 5? 2K1 I [mud-i Hinutlalicin and I 'a'l ?ner-are 1"}Ltr I I I Hemline?: in 'I'eelinieal Barre aunt I?:Lcili1ie:; ll'it and lC'cltil'icalinn 2 ghihal nuclear tianI :ii'itl Veriliea1iun IR 20'.Ir Apply tiur 1hr other critical national t'lilrii?l'm Nuclear (?ciutiterterrorlam llicldenl I?espcinae (12 environmental I .egat-Ix- leurri: 1t] I ?W-l ill-1i?: Nib-W 'l'atil: ('ciinpleted I ti 1 1 art-1.1m: 3 3-7? ?3 355 Solar Energy 5 4t) 2 ?is 421 Wind Energy 36 7" =13 L'ieutl?Lernial 'I'ecl?tncilngy 25 2 27-" and Fuel Cell Technologies 2?4 5 3?1 Advanced HeHearch PruIlecIH Agency Energy . . . . . . . . .- . . Uncover the new aolm Inuit. we need Biur?naas and Biotelinei'y 3-13- 4 5T Power 2W: 5 -l I 'unsl'm'l'n nur l?l l4 5 [Energy System.? New Nuclear {incineration 'I'Lwl?lnn'lcigiea 28 5 2-1-3 Clean 'Coal 3 3 4-05 .?t?tanul'nelurtng (:Il'fiee n: he Building Technologies EH1 l5 I Natural (ins. "Feelinology 3 l? lln?. leehnologiea I I Petroleum . . . Electrit?ily Delivery amt Reliability IS- 2 IT Bonneville Power Administration . . . ?ilppiirl I'C?hpt?'l?il'rli: civilian nuclear power ?ml- I"Llel C?ycle RAH) International - - - .?x?upliurl rlie IiIn-lmu' Mm-L?pile amt l'n1ln'e Inilitiufr Hemline?: and 'l'eclinica] litihl.? and E-?acilitieH ?ll: 2.45 Ti? ?lm-"W aiul Reel) 43 3 4t) [cu-[inn Reduce glnlizil iiuclear dangers I I I 1' lhcullh'tl Hit-tl'nn'lit? April}.- our eapahihtiea ior other critical national niinhiorh Naval Reactor?: 8 42 H54 LL?L??ilt'y fill 3 (13 legacy and active sites 'l'alil-c (?tiinple1ed 2215 54 2.509 451 3.020 3&0 54 9.219 [.590 Ef- [0.313 R350 totalsfor FY2008 and FY2007 were $3,940 and $8,271, respectivebr.U.S.DepartmentofEriergy [mg JEQA [93515 nodag [Epumud ?jua?v Kilaugjo 'g'n L6 5i . 2111717 I IS gr CINV CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Investment in Research and Development The Department's research and development programs are classified: Basic Research, Applied Research, and Development. Research and Development program of?ces facilitate the creation, advancement. and deployment ofthe newtechnologies and. support the Department?s mission to ensureAmerica's security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. Goal 1: Transform Our Energy Systems (Basic, Applied, and Development} The Office of Enerev Efficiencv and Renei-vable Enerev invests in high?risk, high?value research and development, as well as deployment and promotion activities that would not be sufficiently conducted by the private sector. .EERE works with public and private sector decision makers, partners, and other stakeholders to develop programs and policies to facilitate the technologies and practices through ef?ciency mechanisms such as appliance efficiency standards, building codes, federal ?eet initiatives, energy education activities, and ?nancialassistance grants. Program activities include: Hydrogen Technology, Biomass. 8; Biorefinery Systems Solar Energy, Wind Energy. Geothermal Technology, Water Power, Vehicle Technologies, Building Technologies, Industrial Technologies, Federal Energy Management Program, and Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities. The Building Technologies program connects basic and applied sciences by developing the next generationof. highly. ef?cient technologies. and. practices for. both residential and commercial buildings through Emerging Technologies RSLD activities. The Industrial program connects basic and applied sciences and re? energizes the national labs by bringing together industry, national laboratories. and academiato spur. innovations that work in real industrial environments to save energy and reduce emissions. It also integrates national laboratory, university, and industry activities by. competitively awarding cost-shared funding to collaborative research teams that rely on industry?s active participation to ensure that the technologies meet real- world criteria, thus acceleratingtechnology commercialization. The Office of Fossil Enerev (FE) coal research, development, and demonstration program consists of key integrated strategies needed for carbon capture and storage. to become a viable option for reducing greenhouse gases in the United States and globally. This program advances power generation technology for reasonable-cost CCS, including Advanced Turbines, Gasification Technology, Fuels, and Carbon Sequestration [which includes researching ways to separate and permanently store greenhouse gas from stationary sources through its Regional Carbon Sequestration Program]. The Advanced Research program is comprised ofa set of cross? cutting, long-term. research. projects that can potentially contribute to aspects of the coal research portfolio. Commercial-scale projects are. operated throughthe Clean Coal Power Initiative, a cost-shared commercial demonstration program for advanced cost?reduction technologies for new and retrofit CCS applications and through FutureGen, which will demonstrate the capability to. integrate electricity. generation. from. coal with carbon. capture, compression, transportation, and geologic storage. FE research supports concepts. for various technologies for. central systems: research and development in the area of Carbon Sequestration to lower the costs of C02 capture, provide fundamental scienti?c information on engineered terrestrial sequestration approaches, and develop advanced instrumentation to measure and validate. terrestrially sequestered carbon; and research and development in thearea of Advanced Research to model mineral sequestration and develop hydrogen separation membranes. The Department has proposed to phase out activities ofthe FE natural gas hydrates research and development program that focused on the. two. major technical constraints to production which industry has both the resourcesand incentive to. do. itself?the need to detect andquantify methane hydrate deposits prior to. drilling and the demonstration ofmethane production from hydrate at commercial volumes. Instead, the Department is attempting to focus these resources on research aimed at reducing the. environmental impact of shale gas development. The Office of Nuclear Energy supports the diverse civilian nuclear energy programs of the U.S. Government, leading Federal efforts to research and develop nuclear energy technologies, including generation, safety, waste storage and. management, and security technologies to help meet energy security, proliferation resistance, and climate goals. NE organizes its activities along four main objectives that address. challenges to expanding the use of nuclear power: . develop technologies and other. solutions that can improve the reliability, sustain the safety, and extend the life of current reactors; develop improvements in the affordability of new reactors to enable nuclear. energy to help meet the administration?s energy security and climate change goals: develop sustainable nuclear fuel cycles; and understanding and minimization of risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. The Office of Electricity. Delivery and Energy Reliability research and development initiatives focus on technologies that can improve the. reliability, efficiency, and security of the nations' electricity delivery systems. Transmission Reliability research is expected to result in reduced frequency and duration of operational disturbances on the electric grid. Energy Storage and 93 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 U.S. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Renewables Integration research activities could reduce peak prices of electricity and increase asset utilization as well as improve accessibility to a variety ofenergy sources for generation. Cyber Security for Energy Delivery Systems research focuses on hardening our energy infrastructure and mitigating cyber vulnerabilities in the energy sector. Smart grid research is aimed at advancing interoperability, communication standards and system engineering to balance greater intermittent energy supplies with a potentially growing volatility in demand as consumers engage. in. energy management. A Technology lnnm'ation office within the Bonneville Power Administration is used to focus and manage technology initiatives, as well as to help guide the development ofa robust research and development portfolio, drawing from staff that are already engaged in dispersed research and development work. Current projects fall under categories of energy efficiency and interactability, renewable resource/wind integration, and transmission operations and control. An example is the Development and Demonstration ofAdvanced Lighting Technologies project, where the objective is to demonstrate the applicability of advanced, high-efficiency lighting technologies that can be controlled through energy management systems, lighting based control systems, andfor demand response control systems that utilize Internet protocol based remote control and command to allow the reduction oflighting loads. Recent outcomes supported by DOE REED investments in energy systems: a Solar 'l?ecl'iuology Supported by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's P?v? incubator Program, Alta Devices single?junction thin?film Gallium Arsenide [GaAs] photovoltaic technology recently achieved a world record 28.2% conversion efficiency. t. Battery Technology General Electric is using DOE advanced light sources to develop a revolutionary battery technology. The new batteries, based on sodium metal halide technology, boast three times the energy density and charging power ofthe lead-acid batteries they are designed to replace. I Smart tirid 'l'cchnolovv DOE has partnered with key stakeholders from industry, academia, and state governments to modernize the nation's electricity. grid using digital technology for remote sensing and control, enabling two-way communication between. the. utility and customer. Research priorities address challenges and accelerate transformation to a smarter grid. 0 Coal '['echnologv - DOE funding is helping to build one. of the world's most advanced and cleanest coal-based power plants in Texas. The plant will produce power by. converting subbituminous. coal into hydrogen-rich gas [syngas] and carbon dioxide. The syngas and high-quality. steam will. be fed to the combined- cycle combustion and steam turbine generator to produce electricity. C02 will be captured and used for enhanced oil recovery. Goal 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise (Basic). The Office of Science supports research activities in the following areas: Advanced Scientific Computing Research relevant to the complex challenges faced. by the Department and providing world class supercomputer and networking facilities for scientists; Basic Energy Sciences, including work in the natural sciences that emphasizes fundamental research in materials science, chemistry, geosciences, and physical biosciences; Biological and Environmental Research, which provides the foundational science for alternative fuels, advanced climate predictions, terrestrial carbon sequestration, subsurface bio?geo? processes, and radiobiology at a range of scales from the molecular to the whole Earth; Fusion Energy Sciences, including broad-based fundamental research efforts aimed at producing the knowledge needed for a fusion energy source, and to be a world leader in plasma physics and high energy density physics research; High .7. - Energy Physics Dr. haul u'lmullvr. who u??Im Lilli] actwmes . I'll l?i' . directed at I I understanding the nature of matter and energy: Nuclear Physics activities directed at understanding the fundamental forces and particles of nature as manifested in nuclear matter; and Small Business Innovation Research/Technology Transfer support for energy related technologies. Recent outcomes supported by. DOE. investments in science and engineering: 0 Solar Research A new solar cell design for the thin? film silicon solar cell was developed using advanced optics and nanotechnology to maximize performance and minimize cost. This work was assisted by a million. incubatorgrant from DOE. Biomass Research Team of researchers at the BioEnergy Science. Center pinpointed. the exact, single gene that controls ethanol production capacity in a microorganism. found in many types ofbiomass crops. 0 Computer Research. Computer scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National. Laboratory developed a new approach to searching massive databases. Embodied in open-source software called FastBit, the new method can search massive databases 10 to 100 US. Department of Energy 99 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 20 1 1 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS times faster than large commercial database software, depending on the specific application. a Vehicle Research - Pacific Northwest National Laboratory?s catalysis research program performed research that led to a better understanding of how a catalyst functions. and enabled. improvements in conventional catalytic converters; this will enable the fuel efficient, lean-burn engine to become a commercial reality. Goal 3: Secure Our Nation (Basic, Applied, and Development) Although. critical to the U.S. nuclear deterrent strategy, the nation has not deployed a new nuclear weapon in over 20. years, nor conducted an. underground nuclear. test since 1992. Instead, scientists at the National Nuclear Security Administration maintain the warheads in the stockpile well beyond their originally intended life by using sophisticated supercomputers, facilities, and computer codes that test and predict the. safety, security, and reliability of US. weapons in NNSA laboratories. The NNSA Proliferation Detection program. provides technical expertise and leadership toward the development of next?generation nuclear. detection. technologies and methods to detect foreign nuclear materials and weapons production. This program develops. the tools. technologies, and. techniques used. to detect, locate, and analyze the global proliferation of nuclear weapons technology with special emphasis on technology to detect the illicit diversion ofspecial nuclear materials and. support for US. commitments to international treaties such as the Nonproliferation. Treaty. The NNSA Nuclear Detonation Detection program develops and builds the nation's operational space-based sensors to detect and report world-wide nuclear detonations; produces and delivers advanced technology that enable operation ofthe nation?s ground?based nuclear detection networks. and develops tools, technologies, and related science for collecting and. analyzing forensic. information related to nuclear detonations. The NNSA Naval Reactor program's research and development efforts support new reactor plant development, new technologies for future ?eet application, and continued, reliable operation ofthe. nuclear fleet. The Office of Environmental Management maintains a Technology Development and Deployment program. The overall goal ofthis program is to eliminate technical barriers to cleanup by reducingtechnical.uncertainty, improving safety performance by applying improved or new technologies, increasing confidence in achieving long- term cleanup. goals, addressing emerging issues, and. leveraging investments in scientific research conducted by other parts of the Department. 100 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Required Supplementary Information (RSI) UNA UDI TED - See accompanying Auditors? Report his section. of. the report provides required. supplementary information for the Department on deferred maintenance and budgetary resources by major budget account. Deferred Maintenance Deferred maintenance information is a requirement under SFFAS No.6, Accounting for. Property, Plant and Equipment, and SFFAS No. 14-, Amendments to Deferred Maintenance, which requires deferred maintenance to be disclosed as of the. end. of. each FY. Deferred maintenance is. defined in SFFAS No. 6 as "maintenance that was not performed when it should. have been or. was. scheduled to be and which, therefore, is put offor delayed for a future period.? Estimateswere developed for: Buildings and Other Structures and Facilities $4.20? million CapitalEquipment . . . . . . . . Total $4,319 million Buildings and Other. Structures and Facilities The condition assessment survey. [periodic inspections] method was used in measuring a deferred maintenance estimate. for buildings and other structures and facilities except for some structures and facilities where a physical barrier was present underground pipe systems]. In those cases, where a deficiency is identified during normal operations and correction ofthede?ciency is past due, a. deferred maintenance estimate. would be applicable. Also, where appropriate, results from previous condition assessments have been adjusted to. estimate current plant conditions. Deferred maintenance for excess property was reported only in situations where maintenance is. needed. for worker and public health and safety concerns. The Department determines deferred maintenance and acceptable operating condition through various methods, including periodic condition. assessments, physical. inspections, review of work. orders, manufacturer and engineering specification, and other methods. As. of September 30, 20 11,. an amount of$4,20? million of deferred maintenance was estimated to be required to return. the facilities to acceptable operating condition. The percentage of active buildings above acceptable operating condition is. estimated at 69 percent. Capital Equipment 1 1 2 million Pursuant to the cost/benefit considerations provided in. SFFAS No. 6. the Department has determined that the requirements for deferred maintenance reporting on. personal property [capital equipment] are not applicable toproperty items with an acquisition cost ofless. than $100,000, except in situations. where. maintenance is. needed to address worker and public health and safety concerns. I.farious methods were used for measuring deferred maintenance and determining acceptable operating condition for the Department's capital equipment including periodic condition assessments, physical inspections, review ofwork orders, manufacturer and. engineering speci?cation, and other methods, as appropriate. An amount of$112 million ofdeferred maintenance was estimatedto be needed as of September 30. 201 1, to return capital equipment assets to acceptable operating condition. U.S. Department of Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 101 CONSOLIDATEDAND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Budgetary Resources by Major Account for Recovery Act 8: Non-Recovery Act Accounts - As. ofSeptember 31], 2011 Recovery. Act Accounts BUDGETARY. RESOURCES: Untihligatcti Balancc. Brought Ftn?wai'tl. Oct I 5 2.39111 31": 55 L54- 11$ 8 1?1} Rectwerics cf Prior Year. Unpaid Obligatiana .. .. .. .. . . .- Budget Aullnn'ity - - - - - . .. .. .. .- .. .- .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .- Aatlmt'ity not Available - - - - - TotalBudgetaryRewumes .. STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES: Obligalimialncurrcd 515. . . . 1.329 I ':51$. . . . . . .66 115EliB:alancc~:Avail:tI1lc . . . .551 . . . . - . . . . . 3 4 - Unnbligatecl Balances not Available .. .. .. .. . . 3.31111 . . . . . . . . . . .51;. . . . . CHANGE IN UBLIGATEI) BALANCE: I Oliligatcd Balance. Brunet? Forward. Oct 1 8 328-1 51$ 32 -I 2.6-1 Uhligatiunalncurmd . . . . . 1.829 t?Leas: Gross Outlaysa [321]] {26le [52: m} E11150: Obligatcd Balance Lease; Rccm'cricsnt'PY Obligalinns, Actual . . . . - . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . Change in Uncallectcd.Customer Payments. Federal . . . . . . . .- Balance. Ncl..Flntinf'Pcrind . . . . 1.533 S, . . . 3.1116: Eli31%. . . 5111 NET OUTLAYS 3.. .. .. .. ..320 I .268 .. .. .. 2.059 BUDGETARY RESOURCES: Ftn?ward.0ct 51151;. . . . . . Recoveries cf Prior Year Unpaid Obligations . . . . . . . Hudgct Aulhtn'ity 542 NancxpenditureTmnaferHAutlmt'lly nut Available - - - - - Total Budgetaly Resources 5Ill. 2 - '11 .542 1?17 STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES: Obligalimialncurrcd 515':Ii . . . . ..1 Eli115. . . . . . 542 515. . . . . ..lliT B:alancc~:Avail:tI1lc . . . . - . . . . Unabligatetl Balances not Available . . . . . . . Total Stalin: of Budgetary Resources I I ?u 2 ?Is ?1 543 '15 131? CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE: I Olillgatcd Balance. Brought Eiurwat'd. Oct 1 3'3 12.?73 1 Eli 33?L055: Gt't?la? Outlay-.5 [1321 1542} [3-1-1 Obligatcd Balance Lease; Rccm'cricsnt'PY Obligalinns, Actual . . . . . . . . .Change in Uncallectcd.Customer Payments. Federal . . . . . . . .- I - - - . - Oliligatcd Balance. th. End of Pcritid 71.11515 Si - .?Is 221) Si - El? 1% NET OUTLAYS . . . . . . I .?li I 132 .. 542 ..34 BUDGETARY RESOURCES: Untilaligatcu Balance. Brought [Jct I 3'3 4 - .?Ii 54- 515. . . . . 2.546 . .. .. .. Authority - - 111.835 4211 . .. . 11.934 Net . . . . . . . - Aulhnrily Available . . . . . . - . . . . . . - . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . .- .. .. .. . .. .- 'l'ulaI Budgetary Resuurcc51$. . . . . ?10.939 115 . . . . . . 424 1'15?14.545 0F RESOURCES: ObligatithIncurred 5IiiUnuhligateu Balances: Available I . . . . .615 UnnhligatedBalanceannt Available . .. .. .. .- 1.471 .. .. .. .424 .. .. .. . 1.907 'I'tJtaI Status 3'3 4 - .?Ii 42:1 515. . . . ?161.545 CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE: I Balancc. Forward5.435 5112111 . . . . . . . . 119.. .. 24.336 ObligatiunsIncurred 0.441 . . . . . . . .- . . . . 12.023 Leas: (imss ()utlays [3.1 [1151]} 11.614} .. .. (12.93511 Obligated BalanceTransaterred..Net .. .. .. .. . . .- LI:th Obligations. Actual - - - - .. . . . . . .. . Changein UnwllectedCustomer Paymem?. Fedeml . - (347} .. .. .. . .. 11.5115] Uhllgatcd Balance. Diet. Lind IS 1 3 11.285 Eli til-LIT} 1'15. . . . 22,330 Nl-J'l' OUTLAYS 35. . . . . .3 .11511.269 (HII :13. . 12.52:] 102 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Non-Recovery Act Accounts 515.4159 5.22:4. 2.464 5.11114 55 - [35) ..ll {25} - [(34.1 :5 5.553 ?5 3.254 3 8.296 :5 2.515 :5 5.1117 :3.221} :5 2.491} :5 4.993.23:5 - I - :5 5.55.1 55 5.254 :5 8.2915 :5 2.515 :5 5.111 :5 5.555 22 5 3.131 :5 21111 :5 2.521} ll 8.220 4.998 15.411] 1:1] (8.232} [2.411141 15.51? .13) 15} - 12m 114} .125} I15 .135} 511 3.927 25 ?3 3.258 31> 18? 31> 21152 111 4.333 ..8 315 818 311 5.310 :5 :44 5 1154 :5 4.229 :5 2 4 - 3?1" ..15 .. - 2.339 9152 2.11315 11} 4.21315 .. 26 (28) .- {50} I31 134) 11.5133} 111 2.369 99" .. 2.125 3151 4.254 311 3.180 313 2,344 5 985 .. 2.05115: 31% 190 3.165 23 5 4.11514 15 ..2 2: 511 2.3159 5 9911 5 2.175 4.254- 3.131111 51': 1.954 215 5 2.524 2.11m 31$ 2.1?1.1} 2.344 985 2.056 I 90 3. I 65 {2.21115} 1931] 121102]: [1.128]: [3.1511]: - .- 14} - 137) - 118) .171 :5 2159 25:14 :5 1.128 :5 244:; 111 2.19" ..1.813 3151 1.128 31?; (7'41 :5 3151?: 2.32? .. 3,458 5 3,305 13,309 ..- 39 I42 751-1 4.95:4 411.35% 14510 53.502 - .192} ..- {2.11131 .. 113.849) .. (315) :5 ?5 5.379 44.011r :5 4.459 :5 63.02] 734 3 4.337 3 35.095 :5 1.288 :5 43.91115 310 1.0111 . 5.640 .. 12 32 3.232 2.15159 .7243 :5 1.1144 :5 5.521: 44.5111r :5 4.459 :5 63.02] H5 2154 5.15195 3 22.389 :5 3.839 315 51.054 734 4.33? 35,095 1.783 48,906 11561] 14.15411] {36.033} .. [3.459) ..- (53} - .- - .130} .. (51' 22 .954 (565} :5 222 3.3l'1' .. 21,256 5 3,092 46,228 :5 37 3 13.1114} 211.027 :5 2.125 :5 34.672 US. Department uf'Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 103 REPORT Auditors? Report Memorandum from the Inspector General Department of Energy Washington. DC 20585 November 15, 2011 MEMORANDUM FOR FROM: Gregory H. an ?7 Inspector General SUBJECT: INFORMATIQE: Report on the Department of Energy?s Fiscal Year 2011 Consolidated Financial Statements Pursuant to requirements established by the Govenunent Management Reform Act of 1994. the Office of Inspector General engaged the independent public accounting ?rm of KPMG LLP (KPMG) to perform the audit of the Department of Energy?s (Department) Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Consolidated Financial Statements. KPMG audited the consolidated balance sheets of the Department as of September 30, 2011 and 2010, and the related consolidated statements of net cost, changes in net position, and custodial activity, and combined statement of budgetary resources, for the years then ended. KPMG concluded that these consolidated ?nancial statements are presented fairly, in all material respects. in conformity with US. generally accepted accounting principles and has issued an unquali?ed opinion based on its audits and the reports of other auditors for the year ended September 30, 201 1. As part of this review, auditors also considered the Department's internal controls over ?nancial reporting and tested for compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations. contracts, and grant agreements that could have a direct and material effect on the consolidated ?nancial statements. The audit revealed certain de?ciencies in internal control over ?nancial reporting related to unclassi?ed network and infonnation systems security that were considered to be a signi?cant de?ciency. The following signi?cant de?ciency in the Department's system of internal controls is not considered a material weakness: I Unclassi?ed Network and Information Systems Security: Network vulnerabilities and weal-messes in access and other security controls in the Department's unclassi?ed computer information systems continue to exist. The Department has taken steps to enhance its unclassi?ed cyber security program. including oversight of cyber security reform efforts, issuing guidance. and the development of a cyber security management architecture framework to support the Department's mission-based risk management approach. US. Department ot'Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 104 REPORT The audit disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under applicable audit standards and requirements. KPMG is responsible for the attached auditor's report and the opinions and conclusions expressed therein. The is responsible for technical and administrative oversight regarding KPMG's performance under the terms of the contracL Our review was not intended to enable us to express. and accordingly we do not express. an opinion on the Department's ?nancial statements, management's aSsertions about the effectiveness of its internal control over ?nancial reporting, or the Department's compliance with laws and regulations. Our monitoring review disclosed no instances where KPMG did not comply with applicable auditing standards. I would like to titanic each of the Department elements for their courtesy.r and cooperation during the review. Attachment cc: Deputy Secretary of Energyr Under Secretary for Nuclear Sec-ant)r Under Secretary of Energy Under Seeretaq for Science Chief of Staff Acting Chief Financial Of?cer Audit Report: oases?12-02 US. Department ofEnergy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 105 REPORT Independent Auditors? Report KPMG LLP 2001 Street DC 20036?3339 INDE PENDENT REPORT The Inspector General United .?Sta tes Department of Energy and The Secretary- United States Department of Energ?: ?7e haye audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of the United States Department of Energy {Department} as of $eptember 30. 3011 and 1010. and the related consolidated statements of net cost. changes in net position. and custodial activity: and combined statements of budgetary resources. for the years then ended {hereinafter referred to as ?consolidated ?nancial statements"). The objective of our audits was to express an opinion on the fair presentation of these consolidated financial statements. In connection with our ?scal year 2011 audit. we also considered the Departments internal control over ?nancial reporting and tested the Deparm-tenfs compliance with certain proyisions of applicable laws- regulations- contracts. and grant agreements that could have a direct and material effect on these consolidated ?nancial statements. As discussed in this report. a Power l?rlarketing of the Department. whose Department? related financial data is included 111 the accompanying consolidated ?nancial statements. was audited by other auditors whose report has been funnshed to us and was considered n1 forming our overall opinion on the Department?s consolidated financral statements. As stated in our opinion on the consolidated financial statements. based upon our audits and the report of the other auditors- we concluded that the Department consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended September 30. 201 and 2010. are presented fairly- in all material respects- in conformity with 1.7.5. generally accepted accounting principles- Our opinion emphasizes that: the Department has loans and loan guarantees issued under the Federal llCredit Reform Act of 1990 and that subsidy costs of the loans and loan guarantees include mterest rate differentials. dehnquencies- defaults- fees and other cash ?ow items: the cost estnnates supporting the Department's enyiroiunental remediation liabilities are based upon assumptions regarding funding and other ?tture actions and decisions- many of which are beyond the Departments control; and (3) the Department is itiyolyed as a defendant in seyeral matters of litigation relating to its inability to accept conmtercial spent nuclear fuel by January 31. 1998. the date specified in the Nuts-Tem- ?hare Poirot Aer of E033- as amended. Our consideration of internal control oyer ?nancial reporting resulted in identifying certain deficiencies related to unclassified network and systems security. that we consider to be a signi?cant deficiency- as defnied in the Internal Control Dyer Financial Reporting section of this report- er did not identify any de?c1enc1es internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be n1ater1al weaknesses as defined in the Internal Control Dyer Financial Reporting section of this report- The results of our tests of compliance with certain proyisions of laws. regulations. contracts. and grant agreements disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported herein --5 Sean-airs- Lat-It} t'ts .J S. mer'tter "Ti 5" ":er'tazorra him-19 literate-o'- 3 Ears-5 106 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy REPORT under Auditing Standards and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin Number 070.) 0104. --lmt'i't Requiremeiztrfot'Fermi-n! Financial Statements. as amended. The followmg sections discuss our opinion on the Department's consohdated fmancial statements: our consideration of the Department's internal control over ?nancial reporting; our tests of the Department's compliance with certain provisions of applicable laws. regulations. contracts. and grant agreements: and management's and our responsibilities. OPINION ON THE STATEMENTS Vie have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of the United States Department of Energy as of September 30- 3011 and 3010. and the related consolidated statements of net cost. changes in net position- and custodial activity- and the combined statements of budgetary resources for the years then ended. ?He did not audit the financial statements of Bonneville Power Administration as of and for the years ended September 30. 3011 and 3010. whose Department?related ?nancial data re?ect total assets constituting 13.3 percent and 10. 7 percent and total net costs constitutmg percent and percent. respectively- ofthe related consolidated totals. Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose report has been furiushed to us- and our opinion- insofar as it relates to the amounts included for Bormeville Power Administration. is based solely upon the report of the other auditors. In our opinion- based on our audits and the report of the other auditors. the consolidated ?nancial statements referred to above present fairly. in all material respects. the financial position of the United States Department of Energy as of September 30- 301 1 and 3010. and its net costs- changes in net position. budgetary resources- and custodial activity for the years then ended- in conformity with US. generally accepted accounting principles. As discussed in Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements. the Department has total direct loans and loan guarantees. net. of 3.7.1 billion and $3.5 billion as of September 30. 3011 and 3010. respectively. which are issued under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990- Subsidy costs of the loan and loan guarantees are mtended to estimate the long-term cost to the US. Goverimient of its loan program and include interest rate differentials. delinquencies. defaults. fees and other cash flow items. A subsidy re- estimate is performed annually at September 30. Any adjustment resulting from the re?estimate is recognized as subsidy expense. As discussed in Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements the cost estimates supporting the Departments environmental remediation liabilities of $351 billion and $350 billion as of September 30- 3011 and 3010- respectively- are based upon assumptions regarding funding and other future actions and decisions- many of which are beyond the Departments control. As discussed in Note 18 to the consolidated ?nancial statements. the Department is involved as a defendant in several matters of litigation relating to its inability to accept commercial spent nuclear fuel by January 31- 1998- the date specrfied in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (31"3983- as amended. The Department has recorded liabilities for likely damages of $19 billion and $15 billion as of September 30- 3011 and 3010. respectively. 0.5. Department ofEnergy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 107 REPORT The information in the h?lanagement' Discussion and Analysis. Required Supplementary Information- and Required Supplementary Stewardship Infoniiation sections is not a required part of the consolidated ?nancial statements. but is supplementary information required by L715. generally accepted accounting principles. We and the other auditors have applied certain limited procedures. which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of this information. However. we did not audit this information and. accordingly. we express no opinion on it. Our audits were conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the consolidated financial statements taken as a whole. The information in the Consolidating Schedules section of the Departments :01 .igenrji Financial Report is presented for purposes of additional analysis of the consolidated financial statements rather than to present the ?nancial position. net costs- changes in net position- budgetary resources- and custodial activity of the Departments components mdividually. The September 30. 3011 consolidating information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the consolidated financial statements and. in our opinion. based upon our audits and the report of the other auditors. is fairly stated. in all material respects- in relation to the consolidated financial statements taken as a whole. The information in the Message from the TSecretary and Other Accompanying Information section of the Department's 3011 Financial Report is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not required as part of the consolidated financial statements. This information has not been subjected to auditing procedures and- accordingly- we express no opinion on it. INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees. in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. to prevent. or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a de?ciency. or a combination of deficienCies. internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity?s financial statements will not be prevented- or detected and corrected on a timely basis. Our consideration of internal control over finanCial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the Responsibilities section of this report and was not designed to identify all de?ciencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be deficiencies. significant deficiencies. or material weal-messes. This report also includes our consideration of the results of the other auditors' testing of internal control over financial reporting that are repoited on separately by those auditors. However. this report. insofar as it relates to the results of the other auditors' testing. is based solely on the report of the other auditors. In our fiscal year 2011 audit. we did not identify any de?ciencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses. as defined above. However. we identi?ed certain deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting related to unclassified network and information systems security. as described below and more detail Exhibit I. that we consider to be a significant deficiency in internal control over financial reporting. A significant deficiency is a de?ciency. or a combination of defiCienCies- in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness. yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. 0 Unclassi?ed item-owl- our." irgfoniinri'oi: sister?: rectti'in' We noted network vulnerabilities and weaknesses in access and other security controls in the Department's unclassified computer information systems- The identified weaknesses and vulnerabilities increase the risk that 108 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy REPORT .555! malicious destruction or alteration of data or unauthorized processmg could occur. The Department should fully implement policies and procedures to improye its network and information systems security. Exhibit 11 presents the status of the prior year sigmficant deficiency. ?tlr'e noted certain additional matters inyolying internal control oyer financial reporting and internal control oyer ?nancial management systetns that we will report to management in separate letters. COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS The results of our tests of compliance described in the Responsibilities section of this report- exclusiye of those referred to in the Federal Financial 2L arrangement Improvement Act of 1.0.06 disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported herein under Goi'emmetir .lau?in?rrg Standards or OMB Bulletin No. (ll?04. as amended. This report also includes our consideration of the results of the other auditors testing of compliance and other matters that are reported on separately by the other auditors. Howeyer. this report. insofar as it relates to the results ofthe other auditors testing. is based solely on the report of the other auditors. The results of our tests disclosed no mstances in which the Department?s fmancial management systems did not substantially comply with the Federal financial management systems requirements- applicable Federal accounting standards. and (3.) the United States Goyernment Standard General Ledger at the transaction leyel. RESPONSIBILITIES Management?s Responsibilities. Management is responsible for the consolidated financial statements: establishmg and maintainmg effectiye mternal control: and complying with laws- regulations- contracts. and grant agreements apphcable to the Department. Autlitors' Responsibilities. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the fiscal year 2011 and 2010 consolidated ?nancial statements of the Department based on our audits and the report of the other auditors. Vie conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America: the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Gorei'tmieirr' Aart'i?'ng S?rriita?ai'a'r. issued by the Comptroller General of the United States: and OMB Bulletin No. {ll?04- as amended. Those standards and OMB Bulletin No. 07504. as amended. require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated fmancial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes consideration of internal control Oyer fmancral reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances. but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the eHectit'eitess of the Departments internal control Dyer financial reporting. Accordingly. we express no such opinion. An audit also includes: 0 Exaniimng- on a test basis. eyidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements: 0 Assessing the accounting principles used and estimates made by management: and 0.5. Department ofEaergy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 109 REPORT 0 Evaluating the overall consolidated financial statement presentation. Vie believe that our audits and the report of the other auditors provide a reasonable basis for our opinion- In planning and performing our fiscal year 2011 audit. we considered the Department's internal control over ?ll??Cl?l reporting by obtaining an understanding of the Department's internal control. determining whether internal controls had been placed in operation- assessing control risk and performing tests of controls as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the consolidated financial statements. but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Departments internal control over ?nancial reporting- Accordingly- we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Departments internal control over ?nancial reporting. Furthermore. we did not test all controls relevant to operating objectives as broadly de?ned by the Federal Financial Integritjt' .ch As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Departments fiscal year 3011 consolidated ?nancial statements are free of material misstatement. we performed tests of the Departments compliance with certain provisions of laws- regulations contracts. and grant agreements noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of the consolidated financial statement amounts. and certain provisions of other laws and regulations specified in OMB Bulletin No- as amended- including the provisions referred to in Section of FFMIA. life linuted our tests of compliance to the provisions described in the precedmg sentence. and we did not test compliance with all laws. regulations. contracts. and grant agreements applicable to the Department. However. providing an opinion on compliance with laws. regulations- contracts- and grant agreements was not an objective of our audit and. accordingly. we do not express such an opinion. The Department's response to the fnidings identified n1 our audit is presented in Exhibit I. We did not audit the Departments response and. accordingly. we express no opinion on it. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Department management. the Department's Of?ce of Inspector General. OMB- the US. Government Accountability Office- and the 17-5. Congress and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these speci?ed parties. (Pvt/[G November 14- 301 110 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy REPORT [inelassi?erl Network and Information Systems Security The United States Department of Energy (Department or DOE) uses a series of interconnected unclassi?ed networks and information systems. Federal and Departmental directives require the establishment and maintenance of security over unclassified niformation systems- including ?nancial management systems. Past audits identified significant weaknesses in selected systems and devices attached to the computer networks at some Department sites. The Department has implemented corrective actions to address many of the identified weaknesses at the sites whose security controls we. and the Department's Of?ce of Health- Safety and Security. reviewed in prior years. However- at the time of our testing. these corrective actions had not been completed. The frequency of network security weaknesses reported by KPNIG LLP has increased when compared to the prior year weaknesses. although the severity of these weaknesses remains consistent with prior year weaknesses. The Department recognizes the need to enhance its unclassified cyber security program and has categorized unclassi?ed cyber security as a leadership challenge in its Federal flfanagei's? Financial Integri'n' Act assurance statement for ?scal year 1011. Improvements are still needed in the areas of system and application access and related access privileges- password management. con?guration management. and restriction of network senic es. Our fiscal year 301 1 audit disclosed information system security deficiencies similar in type and risk level to our fmdings in prior years. Speci?cally- we noted weaknesses within layered security controls for network servers. desktop systems. and business applications. We identi?ed multiple instances of easily guessed login credentials or unrestricted access controls on network systems that could permit unauthorized access to those systems and their data. also found weak account management and monitoring controls for approval. provisioning. and termination of administrative and user accounts that may increase the risk of malicious or unauthorized access to systems and data. In the area of configuration and vulnerability management. we identified deficiencies in the patch management process for timely and secure installation of critical software patches. with numerous instances in which security patches had not been applied to correct known vulnerabilities more than three months after the patches became available. 'We also noted numerous weaknesses in web application integrity as a result of design flaws in those applications. We identified web applications that did not properly validate input data or utilize safe database queries. which could result in unauthorized access to application fimctionality- sensitive data stored in the applications. and other network systems and applications. While many of these cyber security weaknesses were corrected immediately after we identified and reported them to site management deficiencies in the process for identifying- monitoring- and rernediating such deficiencies have continued from prior years. ?7e also identified inconsistent risk management practices at several sites and noted that site management had not established a risk acceptance process to fully document acceptance of risk. We further noted that multiple sites were continuing to develop and implement the Department's revised risk management ?'amework to address these weaknesses. However. these risk management enhancements were incomplete at the time of our testing. The Department's Office of Inspector General reported on these deficiencies n1 its evaluation report on The Unclassi?ed Ct bar Pt'ogr'mrt - 3 H- dated October 30. 2011. The 016 noted that identified weaknesses occurred- in part. because Departmental entities had not ensured that cyber security requirements included all necessary elements and were properly implemented. The OIG reported that program elements did not always utilize effective performance monitoring activities to ensure that appropriate security controls were in place. The GIG also reported deficiencies in con?guration management programs at several sites where. even when polrcres and procedures were established- implementation of those policies and procedures were sometimes inconsistent. At other sites- U.S. Department ofEnergy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 111 REPORT policies were not aligned with Federal requirements related to access controls and vulnerability and con?guration management. The identified vulnerabilities and control weaknesses in unclassified network and information systems increase the possibility that malicious destruction or alteration of data or unauthorized processing could occur. Because of our concerns. we performed supplemental procedures and identified compensating controls that mitigate the potential effect of these security weaknesses on the integrity- confidentiality and availability of data n1 the Departnient?s financial applications. During ?scal year 2011- the Department had taken steps to enhance its unclassified cyber security program includmg oversight of continuing cyber security reform efforts from the Computer Security Governance Council at the Under Secretary level: issuance of additional guidance related to continuous monitoring and assessment of the risk management process in the new cyber directive. DOE Order 205.113- Depm'mrem of Etset'gt Ct'bet' .S'ecm'irt Program: and development of a cyber security management framework to support the Department's mission?based risk management approach. Recommendation: lWhile some progress has been made. continued efforts are needed to effectively manage the evolving nature of cyber security threats. nicluding strengthening the management review process and monitoring of field sites to ensure the adequacy of cyber security program performance: fully implementing revised and ongoing risk management processes: and expanding the use of automated tools in the resolution of the vulnerabilities and control weaknesses described above to ensure that systems are properly configured- implemented and updated throughout the lifetime of those systems- Therefore. we recommend that the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security. Under Secretary of Energ- and Under Secretary for ncience. in coordination with the Department and National Nuclear Security Chief Information Officers. fully implement policies and procedures to ensure that the Federal cyber security standards are met- that networks and information systems are adequately protected against unauthorized access. and that an adequate performance monitoring program is implemented. such as the use of periodic evaluations by Headquarters management. to ensure the effectiveness of sites' cyber security program implementation- Detailed recommendations to address the issues discussed above have been separately reported to the cognizant management officials. llanagement?s Response: During FY 3011. the Office of the Chief Information Officer made good progress towards institutionalizing a Departmental risk-based approach to cybersecurity- including the issuance of DOE Order ZOE-1B. which codifies the governance structure and risk-managed implementation and measurement. In the Order. the responsibility for defining the risk pro?le and implementation requirements for Departmental operating units falls to the Under Secretary-level organizations. which are grouped for the sake of cybersecurity as Senior DOE Management (5131?). The SDM organizations are also responsible. through the deployment of contractor assurance systems (CA8). for graded oversight of their operating units cybersecurity programs based on risk and past performance. Through these mechanisms. the operating unit implementation of Federal cybersecurity standards and mission?related risk management are monitored and assessed. In the few months since the Order was issued- work has been completed within the organizations to prepare the Risk Management Approach Implementation Plans that will bring both common policies and procedures to the operating units but also initiate oversight of cybersecurity program performance. The SD34 level programs are still maturing: when fully documented and deployed. however. the and oversight by local Federal managers will 112 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy REPORT allow for closer monitoring of risk-based cs?bersecurit}: better assessment of its effectiveness and prompt remediation of program performance issues. Energ? Information Teclmologjy' tiers'ices operated bj.? the OCIO- is included in the OCIO SDM RIVIA Implementation Plan. Throughout FY 3013- the OCR) will continue to refute the policy that de?nes the Departmental program develop and maintain the Departmental risk management approach- and will begin to issue supplemental implementing guidance and requested assistance. as required by DOE 0 305.13 to the SDMs. US. Department ot'Energy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 113 REPORT Fiscal Year 1010 Audit Findings Status at September 30, 2011 (with parenthetical disclosure of year first reported) Unclassi?ed Information Systems See uritj.? Not fully implemented Unclassi?ed nenrork Considered :1 Signi?cant Deficiency (1999} and information systems security issues continue to be reponed in Exhibit I as a signi?cant deficiency. 114 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy ?t?flv?mwag-uppuv 1.- -. Iii..- Hanforcl Department of Energy Site, from Saddle Mountain looking toward Rattlesnake Mountain, Columbia River in foreground. It's been recommended as a National Historic Park. US. Department ofEnergy Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2010 115 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION Inspector General?s Management Challenges 11 an annual basis, the Of?ce of Inspector General identi?es what it considers to be the most significant management challenges facing the Department ofEnergy. .This effort is designed to assess the agency?s. progress in addressing previously identified challenges and to. consider. emerging issues. .The. identified challenges represent risks inherent in the Department?s wide ranging and complex operations as well as those related to problems with specific management processes. Consistent with our mission, the overall goal is. to focus attention on significant issues with. the objective ofworking with Department managers to enhance the effectiveness of agency programs and operations. As noted in previous reports, many. ofthe Department?s. most significant management challenges are. not amenable. to immediate resolution and must, therefore, be addressed through a concerted. effort over. time. Given. this. fact, and. based on the results of our body ofwork over the last year, the management challenge. list for Fiscal Year 2012 remains largely consistent with that of 201 1. However, given the current economic environment and associated budgetary concerns, we. haveadded. the area. of Operational Ef?ciency and Cost Savings as a new management challenge. Additionally, due to. the decision. to terminate the Yucca Mountain Project and the remaining uncertainty as. to the path forward for disposing ofspent commercial nuclear waste and high level defense waste, we have elevated Nuclear Waste Disposal from its prior status on the "watch list? to a significant management challenge. Finally, as a result of Department effo rts, Safeguards. and. Security. has been downgraded from the management challenges to the watch list. Thus, with these considerations in mind, the Office of Inspector General's management challenges list for FY 2012 includes: I Operational Ef?ciency and Cost Savings I Contract and Financial Assistance Award Management I Cyber Security I Energy Supply I Environmental Cleanup I Human Capital Management I Nuclear Waste Disposal I Stockpile Stewardship In addition, as noted previously, we develop an annual "watch list" that consists ofsignificant issues that do not meet the threshold of a management challenge, yet, in our view, warrant special attention by Department of?cials. For FY 2012, the watch list includes the areas of Infrastructure Modernization, Safeguards and Security, and Worker and Community Safety. Further, we have added the Department?s Loan Guarantee Program to the watch 116 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 Operational Efficiency and Cost Savings While the. wise. expenditure of taxpayer funds has. always been of vital importance, the current U.S. budget and debt crises and overall economic climate facing the United States have raised the bar. The Department is likely to feel the impact of this situation and face some level of budget know ofno other time in recentmemory. when. there was such a broad and bipartisan consensus concerning the need to reduce Federal spending and address the Nation's mounting debt. While the elements of various budget reduction plans under consideration differ on key details, dramatic change appears very likely and the impact on the Department's operations could be equally Given this atmosphere,.as noted. previously, we have designated Operational Efficiency and Cost Savings as a special management challenge facing the. Department of Energy for FY 2012. In this context, the environment may be right fora conversation concerning the fundamentals. of how the Departmentgoesabout its business. In this. process, it is apparent that any realistic discussion of meaningful change in the. operational. efficiency of the Department or significant reductions in the cost of operations will be difficult, complex, and require. a great deal ofintrospection. Contract and Financial Assistance Award Management The largest civilian contracting agency in the Federal government, the. Department awards contracts to industrial companies, academic institutions, and non-profit organizations that operate a broad range of Department facilities. In fact, a substantial portion of the Department?s operations are carried out through contracts. With the addition ofRecovery Act funding in 2009, successful contract administration within the Department has taken on even greater importance. In addition to contracting, the. Department administers and manages an array ofgrants and cooperative agreements, the number ofwhich increased sharply as a result of Recovery Act programs. Given the number of contracts handled by the Department and the complexity and importance ofthe. Department's numerous multi-million dollar projects, we believe that the area of Contract and FinancialAssistance Award Management remains a significant management challenge. Cyber Secu rity Given the importance and sensitivity of the Department's. activities, along with the vast array of data it processes and maintains, cyber security has become a crucial aspect of the Department's overall security posture. Although the Department has implemented numerous counter measures. in recent years, security challenges and threats to the. Department?s information systems continue and are constantly. evolving. .Adversaries. routinely attempt to. compromise the information technology assets of the US. Department of Energy Department. As such, it is critical that cyber security protective measures keep pace with the growing threat. As a result ofthese inherent risks and the sensitivity of much ofthe Department's work, we have identified Cyber Security as a continuing and significant management challenge. EnergySupply Fundamental concerns related to the availability of energy supply in the 0.5. have had a dramatic impact on consumersand. the US. economy in recent years, with implications for our national security. Through its role in areas ofscientific discovery and innovation, the national laboratory complex, and the Loan Guarantee Program, there is an expectation that the Department will play a leadership role in ensuring that the Nation's energy needs are met through the development, implementation, and execution of sound. energy policy.. Providing the leadership to ensure reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy supply represents a significant management challenge for the Department. Addressing these issues will require both short-term and long-term solutions. For example, the Department is tasked with helping to modernize our national energy infrastructure; invest in clean energy technologies such as hydropower, wind, solar, and cellulosic biomass; and promote conservation in our homes and businesses. Along with provisions. of. the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Recovery Act has had a signi?cant impact on the Department's involvement and prioritization ofthese. issues. Environmental Cleanup Since its establishment, the Department has had an important environmental mission. . With the end ofthe Cold War, this mission took on even greater importance as the agency began. to dispose oflarge volumes of radioactive waste resulting from more than 50 years of nuclear defense. and. energy. research work. .This. effort involves 2 million. acres ofland located in 35. states and employs more than 30,000 Federal and contractor employees. The disposal and cleanup costs associated with these efforts are projected to be in the hundreds of billions ofdollars and will continue well into the foreseeable future. As has been the case in previous years, Environmental. Cleanup remainsa management challenge. that warrants attention on the part of Departmental management. Human Capital Management For. a number. ofyears, strategic management of human capital has been recognized by various government authorities and oversight organizations. as one ofthe Government's most signi?cant challenges. In the past, of?cials. have recognized that the Department?s stafflacked adequate project and contract management skills required to oversee large projects. Subsequently, the Department undertook an effort to perform a critical skills gap. analysis. US. Department of Energy OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION to review and evaluate speci?c critical skill needs. These actions led to our removal, in FY 2009, ofthe human capital focus area from our management challenges. As Recovery Act funding winds down, in conjunction with smaller bottom lines as a. result of the current budgetary environment, the Department must address the challenge of maintaining a highly skilled workforce with the technical knowledge to perform its new and expanded mission. We continue to believe that this challenge represents a critical area that will affect nearly all major program elements. As a result, Human Capital Management will continue to be a key challenge area. that will require considerable attention in the near term. Nuclear Waste Disposal Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982,. the Department is responsible for the management and safe disposal ofhigh-level defense and commercial waste and spent nuclear. fuel.. For a number ofyears, the centerpiece of the Department's efforts relating to the disposal of nuclear. waste. was. the development of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository in Nye County. Nevada. The Department?s FY 2010 budget request. however. included no funding for the Yucca Mountain Project, effectively terminating the Of?ce ofCivilian Radioactive Waste Management. Since that time, the. Blue Ribbon Commission on America?s Nuclear Future was established at the direction ofthe President to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel. cycle, which includes alternative storage sites. In july 2011, the Commission issued a draft report on its ?ndings to the Secretary of Energy. A final report is expected in january 2012. Given the importance ofa coherent strategy on nuclear waste disposal that protects public health, safety, and the. environment and until a viable solution for disposal and storage is outlined, the area ofNuclear. Waste Disposalwill be recognizedas a significant challenge facing the Department. Stockpile. Stewardship. The Department is responsible for the maintenance, certification, and reliability of the Nation?s nuclear weapons stockpile. To help ensure that our nuclear weapons continue to. serve. their essential deterrence role, the Department conducts stockpile surveillance and engineeringanalyses, refurbishes selected. nuclear systems, and sustains the ability to restore the manufacturing infrastructure for the production of replacement weapons. Along these. lines, a recent FY. 2011 continuing resolution passed by Congress provides for a $624 million funding increase for the purpose of beginning the planned modernization ofthe Department?s nuclear weapons complex. While we recognize that the. Department has taken action in recent years to further enhance the safety and reliability ofthe Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, sustained efforts will be necessary if the Department is to extend the life ofaging warheads and maintain a viable weapon stockpile. Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 11? OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION Summary of Financial Statement Audit and Management Assurances Audit Opinion Unquali?ed Restatement No Material Weaknesses Beginning New Resolved Consolidated Ending Balance Balance Totai Material Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 Effectiveness of Internal Control over Financial Reporting FIA Section Statement ofAssurance Unqualified Material Weaknesses Beginning New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance Balance No Material Weaknesses reported Totai Material Weaknesses til 0 0 0 0 0 Effectiveness ofInternal Control over. Operations Section Statement ofAssurance Unqualified Material Weaknesses Beginning New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance Balance No material Weaknesses reported Totai Materialr Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 0 i} Conformance with ?nancial management system requirements Section Statement ofAssurance Systems conform to financial management system requirements Non-Conformances Beginning New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance Balance No non-conformances reported Totai non-conformance 0 0 0 0 0 i} Conformance with Federal Financial Management Improvement Act Agency Auditor Overall Substantial Compliance Yes Yes 1. System Requirements Yes 2. Accounting Standards Yes 3. USSGL at Transaction Level Yes 118 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION Financial Management Systems Plan iManage iManage is the Department?s solution for managing enterprise-wide corporate business systems and information. The primary objectives ofiManage are to improve financial and business system and processing ef?ciencies, enhance decision making capabilities, deploy collaboration and social networking tools, and expand transparent electronic government in support of Presidential priorities. The iManage strategic theme is "Connecting our People", "Simplifying our Work", and "Liberating our Data." iManage is a collaborative effort to modernize, consolidate, streamline, and integrate financial, budgetary, procurement, personnel, program and performance information. The program is supported at the core by a portalfcentral data warehouse that links common data elements from each of the Department's business systems and supports both external and internal reporting. The major system components that comprise iManage are: iManage Data Warehouse [IDijiPortal Standard Accounting and Reporting System (STARS) Corporate Human Resources Information System 1-, Strategic Integrated Procurement Enterprise System 0, Budget (iBudget) iManage also includes travel and payroll processing. Travel processing services are provided by General Services Administration eTravel Services using a system called GovTrip. Payroll processing services are outsourced to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. iManage 1.0 was primarily focused on the modernization, integration and implementation ofthe Department?s corporate financial and business. systems. Significant accomplishments have been made in this area and additional work is in progress to complete the modernization ofall business systems. iManage 2.0 is now shifting much of the focus to the value of providing products and services to. support the Department's strategic vision, mission and decision?making, and interactive peer-to-peer participation. iManage must also address future workforce needs, specifically, decreased learning curve and improved access to training; increased access to experts and peers; more work using the web and remote access; and improved access to systems and information. Current Systems iManaye Data Warehouse {iDWJiPortaI - is a central data warehouse linking common data elements from multiple DOEfiManage corporate business applications US. Department of Energy providing reporting and decision-making capabilities to DOE executives, managers, and staff. iPortal is the iManage "face" to its customers/users. It provides access to iManage applications, personalized dashboards, messaging, discussion boards, collaboration capabilities, news, reporting, web conferencing, graphing and data exchange capabilities to DOE executives, managers and staff. lDW/iPortal continued to support the Department's ARRA responsibilities and traditional project reporting requirements via new Business Intelligence dashboards and reports. iPortal services were expanded to include wikis, blogs and iPages. In addition, a comprehensive training program with classroom, webinars, and on?Iine videos was developed and the system interfaces between IDWfiPortal and STARS were upgraded. Standard Accounting and Reporting System STARS provides the Department with a modern, comprehensive and responsive financial management system that provides the foundation for linking budget formulation, budget execution, financial accounting, financial reporting, cost accounting and performance measurement. The financial management component is integrated with the other major corporate business systems, procurement, funds distribution, travel, and human resources. STARS implemented enhancements to support Trading Partner reporting, implemented Business Intelligence to replace Discoverer, and developed a Payments dashboard. Corporate Human Resource Information System CHRIS is a single, integrated Human Resource system created through a phased approach to provide the highest quality HR information and services to the Department's executives, managers and staff. The primary objectives for CHRIS are to enhance operational efficiencies; reduce paperwork; eliminate redundant information systems; eliminate nun-value added work; and. provide strategic information necessary to make informed human resource management decisions. The Department?s GS and SES performance appraisal process was automated. The ePerformance System was configured, tested and implemented during FY 2011 in preparation for the FY 2012 rollout. Strategic integrated Procurement Enterprise System - STRIPES is the procurement and contracts management component ofiManage, automating all procurement and contract activities required or directly associated with planning, awarding and administering various unclassified acquisition and financial assistance instruments. STRIPES replaced and consolidated federal corporate, regional and local procurement-related systems. across the Department. The STRIPES application connects DOE with the Integrated Acquisition Environment which includes Central Contractor Registration Federal Procurement Data Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 119 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION System - Next Generation Federal Business Opportunities and the Unline Representations and. Certifications Application as well as Grantsgov and FedConnect. In addition, STRIPES is integrated with other iManage projects. such as STARS and IDW. STRIPES upgraded to. PRISM 6.5 to match the upgrade. of. FPDS-NG. STRIPES was deployed to Southwestern Power Administration in FY 2011 and the last rollout to Western Area Power Administration is scheduled for FY 2012.. Systems Underway iBudget iBudget will standardize budget formulation processftemplates, automatically publish the budget documents, streamline budget execution processes, integrate budget and performance data, and consolidate corporate budget data. iBudget loaded FY 2010-2012 Congressional budget ?gures and a FY 2013 fully loaded integrated Priority List was loaded in parallel. with. existing The funds distribution process was reviewed using Lean Six. Sigma to analyze all of the steps. required to control and distribute funding with a goal ofidentifying short and long?term actions to reduce. the cycle time. As a result of this activity, several steps have begun to improve Funds Distribution System and the processes. supporting the. distributionof. funds. Improper Payments Information and Reporting 2002, Public Law No. amended by the Improper Payments Elimination and. Recovery Act of 2010 requires agencies to annually review their programsand activities. to identify those. susceptible. to significant improper payments, to measure and report improper. payment rates and amounts. for programs that are found to be susceptible to improper payments. In addition, IPERA and the implementing guidance expanded agency authorities and requirements for. recapturing overpayments, one type ofimproper payment. The 0MB released guidance for implementing IPERA and established specific reporting requirements for agencies with programs. that possess a. significant risk of erroneous payments and for reporting on the results of recapture activities. As allowed by implementing guidance, 0MB granted DUEapprovalto report FY. 2010 improper payments information in the following section. The Improper Payments Information Act of The Department performs risk assessments and conducts statistical sampling [utilising a statistically determined sample size at the 90 percent level ofcon?dence} at least once every three years to determine whether programs are susceptible to significant improper payments, unless programs experience significant change when frequency is accelerated. The. risk assessments performed are. required to include the following risk factors: ifa new program or activity; if complexity of program or. activity impacts. payment determinations;.and.the annual volume of payments. Based on risk assessments and statistical sampling of FY 2010 information, the Department currently does not have any programs susceptible to significant improper payments. . Improper Payments Improper payments are monitored by the Department on an annual basis to. ensure our error rates remain at 2000 F2 2010* F2 2011 F11 2012 2013 50F. 50F. 5201?. ?ll! PAYMENT EBl'I?lEll 0113110101 Tl'l'E 01102123. 0101103. 01.01.1120 0011.123 0002.25. 0002.25 0.10.2125. 01.01.1123 111.01..?0 11102123. 011015123. 011015123. 1mm! 11 11.3511 112.1 11111 113.533 113.4 [1115 mass 312.5 11115 nun $13.1 11.115 $21.71: 113.1 111113 Contracts Payroll 2.203 1.11 0.02 2.351 1.1 0.02 0.200 1.3 11.112 0.020 0.02 0.021] 1.11 0.02 Travel 313 05 0.10 2112 2.13 1.01 2518 2.5 1.01 2513 20 1.01 258 2.8 1.01 Other A23 0.1 0.02 522 0.2 0.011- 521 0.2 0.2 5112 0.2 0.02 5?12 0.2 0.02 Total 1' i 1115' 1 1:1 1:1? .1 11 1.211111 '1 '11} 11-? 1 1 i 111." 11515. 1' *1'21112 gratEdEJE start-151110 'atthF'r'EUII :ur F'r' 20" rajt'jrg 11:11ras tr Luans- 32-1123 . 1.11'11'1111111111119; 11:: 11' .1111 11111 '1 2v Grants $2.203 FY 2010 2111111.". anus WEE- PHHEHTS 1".5 120 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy minimal levels. The Departmental erroneous payment rate has remained below one percent since the inception of our tracking program in FY 2002. For FY 2010, the Department?s gross estimate ofthe annual amount of improper payments from statistical sampling was 12.5 million and the actual amount ofimproper payments identified was 11.9 million and consisted of$ 11.5 million in overpayments and .4 in underpayments. There are three categories oferrors: Documentation and Administrative Errors, Authentication and Medical Necessity Errors, and Verification Errors. Due to the nature of the Department?s mission, all errors associated with improper payments are considered documentation and administrative errors. The Department operates a loans program and administers grants to primary recipients. Previously, the loans and grants activity was excluded from improper payment reporting, but is incorporated where information is available. DOE is. working closely with OMB to determine a consistent approach for grant-making agencies to utilize in conducting funds stewardship past the primary recipient for future reporting. OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION Recovery Auditing In accordance with the expanded requirements of IPERA, the Department has established a policy for implementing payment recapture auditing requirements. This policy prescribes requirements for identifying overpayments and establishes reporting standards to track the status of recoveries. The Department's payment recapture audit activities include conducting recapture audits and leveraging various other processes to identify and recover improper payments. These other processes include performing statistical sampling for improper payments and error rates, post-payment reviews, internal audits and utilizing the results of cost allowability audits of integrated contractors. An analysis of the Department?s FY 2010 payment activities confirmed an overall low actual overpayment rate of .04 percent and a high payment recapture rate of91 percent. The Department's on-going and integrated relationship. with its contractors enables. the recapture ofa high percentage ofoverpayments. As a result, the Department does not identify payment recapture targets. The cumulative amount determined not collectible by the Department since FY 2004 is .09 million and is deemed uncollectible due to amounts being below a minimal threshold established for pursuing recapture and lost discounts. The Department has identified improper payment activity as a focus area within our internal control program and will continue to emphasize, evaluate and strengthen controls where needed to maintain our record oflow payment errors and ensure. effective stewardship of public funds. F'f 5i AIMHT. 9f: IJF. 9f: IJF. ?EllEll'EI] Mil] FIJI. II IJF. IJF. HIIJIJIIT REVIEW. REHVEHEIJ. $71,915 $55,555 $11.51 $10.44 90.7% 50.93 3.5% $0.09 .8071: Ff DETERMINED EEBIWEIW. EEBIWEIW. EEBIWEIW. $76.74 55.7.39 $88.24 $78.34 $1.14 $0.09 US. Department of Energy .. Agency Financial Report Fiscai?t?ear 2011 121 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION E1 202 E12010 AHIJIJNI E12010. 020133310031. PRIERIIB, IDENHFIED. HATE RAE TARGET. TARGET RATETAREET. .411 311 $11.51 $10.44 90.7% 92% 93% 94% H. 2010 E. ET. 2010. E, Pull! mums. H.2I1II1 EPITIITIT IIJENTFEII RATE $13.02 $11.39 90.3% Ft. 2010 Pl. 200 Ff. 2010 11100111 101mm mnu?t IJIJTSTAHIJIHE tIJTsmInm. Fntlillms. TIMEHT (ll-E mails]. [Enunlla-Irrl. .411 All 31,01 $0.93 $0.13 311mm IIMEHT HAMMEHEHT mum THE ITITIBHAL Putnam: IIMEHT mum mum]! FEES mnunEs FHHFE BEHEHIL .411 All 59.49 MA 50.31 95.0mm? 01111011110. AHEIJHT mnuln AHTIJNT AHIJHHT mnuut mnuut SIIJRBE IJF IJEH11HEII 1131013131 {5 in nihns} H.200 H2005 P120111 (Finn-20M) 022010-2000. Statistical Sample under $0.49 $0.49 99.3% $4.49 MA Post-payment review $3.93 $3.54 33.3% 34 $2.39 23 MA Payment Recapture Audits $0.52 $0.52 99.9% MA $1.33 MA MA 10 Audits/Reviews $0.09 $0.09 100% Mm $0.00 11,011 Self-reported Uverpayments $3.00 $3.78 99.6% MA $2.10 WA Contract Close-Out Reviews $0.56 $0.03 5.2% $0.0 NXA Single Audit Reports $0.05 $0.02 35.3% MA $0.0 Other Monitoring Activitiesmeviews $2.02 $1.93 97.9% MA $0.93 313.4 Total $11.51 $10.44 90.7% $11.34 $11.29 $33.2 $73.3 122 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of Energy OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION Other Statutory Reporting Management?s Response to Audit Reports 1988. [Public Law. 1 00-504], agency heads are. to report to Congress on the status of final action taken on audit report recommendations. This report complements a report prepared by the Department's that provides information on audit reports issued during the period and on the status ofmanagement decisions made on previously issued IG audit reports. ursuant to the Inspector General Act Amendments of Inspector General Audit Reports The Department responds to audit reports by evaluating the recommendations they contain, formally responding to the IG, and implementing agreed upon corrective actions. In some instances, we are able to take corrective action immediately and in others, action plans with long-term milestones are developed and implemented. The audit resolution and follow-up process is an integral part ofthe Department?s effort to deliver its priorities more effectively and at the least cost. Actions taken by management on audit recommendations increase both the efficiency and effectiveness ofour operations and strengthen our standards of accountability. During FY 2011, the Department took final action on 29 It] reports with the agreed-upon actions including final action on four operational, financial and pre?award audit reports with funds put to better use. At the end ofthe period, 129 reports awaited final action. Status. of Final Action on IG Audit Reports for FY 2011 The following chart provides more detail on the audit reports with open actions and the dollar value of recommendations. and. funds "put to better use? that were agreed to by management. HIHIISTIIHEITEII ?l?lT. REFIIETS IEFIITIS Pending ?nal action atstart ofF'l?r 2011 109 $173 TWith actions agreed upon 4.9 $13 Total pending final action 1 58 $18.6 Achieving final action. 29 $8.4 Requiring final action. atend ofFY.2011 129 US. Department of Energy Inspector General?s Contract Audit Reports During FY 2011, there were no IG contract audit reports pending ?nal action. FY 2011 Contract Audit Reports Statistical Table The total number of lC Contract Audit Reports [Contract and Financial Assistance] and the dollar value of disallowed costs: Tl] EETIER IJF. llSE. MIDIT (3 HILLIIB) Pending ?nal action $0 at start of. FY2011 I With actions agreed upon 0 $0 Total pending final. action .5 $0 Achieving final action {1 I I Recoveries - (J - Restatements l] Requiring final action 0 $0 at end ofFY. 2011 The amount ofcosts questioned in the audit report with which the contracting o?ficer concurs and has disallowed as a. claim against the contract. Recoveries of disallo wed. costs are. usually obtained hy offset. against current cloimsfor payment and subsequently usedfor. payment ofother. eligible costs under the contract. Government Accountability Office Audit Reports The GAO audits are a. major component of the Department?s audit follow?up program. At the beginning of FY 2011 there were 51 GAO audit reports awaiting final action. During FY 2011, the Department received 39 additional final GAD audit reports, of which 23 required tracking of corrective actions and 16 did not because the reports did not include actions to be taken by the Department. The Department completed. agreed-upon corrective actions on seven audit reports during FY 2011, leaving 6? GAO. reports awaiting final action at year-end. Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 123 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION Glossary of Acronyms ADS AFCI AFR AMIP APR ARO ARPA ARRA ASC ASU ATVM BI EPA CAP CASL CCFI CCR CCS CERCLA CGS CHCO CHRIS CIO CIP C02 CPMI CR CSRS CWIP 124 Associate Deputy Secretary Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative Agency Financial Report Adaptive Management implementation Plan The Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project Annual Performance Report Asset Retirement Obligations The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Accounting Standards Codi?cation Accounting Standards Update Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Business Intelligence Bonneville Power Administration Corrective. Action Plan Consortium for. Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors Clean Coal Power Initiative Central Contractor Registration Carbon Capture and Storage Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Columbia Generating Station The Chief Human Capital Officer Corporate Iluman Resources Information System Office of the Chief Information Officer Corporate Implementation Plan Carbon Dioxide Contract and Project Management Improvement Continuing Resolution Civil Service Retirement System Construction Work in Process Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 DOE no] EEOICPA EERE EFRC EM ENR ERISA ESA FASAB FASB FCRA FE FERC FERS FFB FFMIA FIMS FIPP FISMA FMFIA FDA FPDS F'f GAO GMRA GNEP Department ofDefense Department of Energy Department oflustice Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Energy Frontier Research Centers Environmental Management Enrichment and Reprocessing Employee Retirement Income Security Act Environment. Safety. and Health Endangered Species Act Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Financial Accounting Standards Board Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 Federal Columbia River Power System Office of Fossil Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Employees Retirement System. Federal Financing Bank Federal Financial Management Improvement Act Facilities Information Management System Financial Institution Partnership Program Federal Information Security. Management Act Federal Managers? Financial Integrity Act Funding Opportunity Announcement Federal Procurement Data System Fiscal Year Government Accountability Office Government Management Reform Act Global Nuclear Energy Partnership US. Department of Energy GSP GTRI HEP HEU HMO HQ HSS HTS HWMA iEudget IDP IDW lG lPlA LCLS LEU LM MA M810 MMS MOX MTU NE NGNP NIF Graded Security Protection Global Threat Reduction Initiative Office. of ligh Energy Physics Highly Enriched Uranium Hybrid-Electric Vehicles Health Maintenance. Organization Headquarters Office of Health. Safety and Secority High Temperature Superconductivity Hazardous. Waste Management Act iManage Budget Identity Credentialing and Access Management program Individual Development Plans iManage Data Warehouse. Inspector General Superclean Integrated Gasification Combined Investor Owned Utility Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act Improper Payments Information Act California Independent System Operator Linac Coherent Light Source Lou;r Enriched Uranium Office of Legacy Management Office of Management Management and Operating The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility Mineral Management Service Memorandum of Understanding Mixed Oxide Metric Tons of Uranium Office of Nuclear Energy Next Generation Nuclear Plant National Ignition Facility US. Department of Energy OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION NNSA NOAA NP NRC NREL NSG. NWF NWPA OCRWM OECD OPAM OPM. ORCA DRNL P.L. PAR PARS PDP PHEV P.RCA RCSP National. Nuclear Security Administration National. Oceanic and. Atmospheric. Administration Office of Nuclear Physics Nuclear Regulatory Commission Natural Resources. Damages. National. Renewable Energy Laboratory Nuclear Suppliers Group Nuclear Waste Fund Nuclear Waste Policy Act Office ofCivilian Radioactive Waste Management Organization for Economic Co-operation 3: Development Office of Procurement and Assistance Management Office ofPersonnel Management Online Representations. and Certifications Application. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Public Law Performance and Accountability Report Project Assessment and Reporting System Medicare Part prescription drug plan Plug-in Hybrid Electric Iv?ehicles Public Law Property. Plant. and Equipment Power Marketing Administrations Preferred Provider Organization Post Retirement Benefits Other Than Pensions Public Utility District Solar pholtovoltaic California Power Exchange Recovery Act Root Cause Analysis Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Research and Development Research, Development 8: Deployment Agency Financial Report Fiscal?t?ear.2011 .. .. 125 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION REP Residential Exchange Program RIK Royalty-in-Kind ROD Record of Decision RPSA Residential Purchase and Sale Agreements RSI Required Supplementary Information RSSI Required Supplementary Stewardship SBIR Small Business Innovative Research SC Office of Science SFAS Statement of Financial Accounting Standards SFFAS Statement ofFederal Financial Accounting SLD Second Line ofDefense SNF Spent Nuclear Fuel SPR Strategic Petroleum Reserve SRS Savannah River Site STARS Standard Accounting and Reporting System STRIPES Strategic Integrated Procurement Enterprise U.S.C. United States Code. UCSD University of California at San Diego USEC United States Enrichment Corporation WAPA Western Area Power Administration 1WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plan WTP Waste Treatment Plant WVDPA West Valley Demonstration Project Act Internet References Links 2016 DDE PAR Reports boutfbudgethtm Advanced Research netl Advanced Research Projects-Energy. Advance Scientific Computing computing?research/ Advanced Technology Tv'ehicles .energygovf Appliance Rebates Atomic Energy Commission Batteries http:ffenergy.govfbatteries Basic Energy Sciences http:ffscienceenergygovfbesf Biological and Environmental Research http:ffscience.energy.govfberf Biomass 8; Biorcfincry Systems 126 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 Block Grant Program Building Technologies Carbon Capture and Storage Technology Clean. Cities Alternative. Fuel Iv'ehicles Program Clean Coal Power Initiative If Control System Security syste ms-security Conversion ofCellulosic Ethanol nol/prod uctlon_ce lulosi Department of. Energy. Electrical grid Energy Frontier Research Center. Energy Information Administration US. Department of Energy Energy Storage and Renewable System Integration energy-integration Federal Energy Management Program FuelceH Fusion Energy Sciences FutureGen netl . doe.govftechnologiesfcoa lpowerffuturegenf Gas Hydrates Geothermal Energy Geothermal Technology High Temperature Superconductivity loads/'su perconductlvity-progra rn- overview High Energy Physics http:ffscience.energy.govfhepf High Performance Computing computing Hydrogen Technology Industrial Technologies Innovative, Advanced Technology Vehicles Legacy Management Legacy Waste Sites Loan guarantees lgprogra Manhattan Project National Ignition Facility National Nuclear Security Administration US. Department of Energy OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION Naval Reactors http:ffn avalreactorsoffice Nuclear Detonation Detection nsa.energv.govfa boutusfou rprogra msfnon proliferation! progra resea rchdevelopment/nuc lea Nuclear Physics Nuclear stockpile Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Officeof. Environmental Management .doegov/Pages/Em Homeospx Office of Fossil Energy http?fossil.energygovf Office. of Management and Budget Office ofNuclear Energy Office ofScience http:ffscienceenergvgovf PAR Reports President?s Budget Power Marketing Administrations rketingadrni n.htrn Proliferation Detection nnsa .energygovfa boutusfou rprogramsx?non prolifer ationforogramof?ces Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 Research; Development and. Demonstration. Program netl Small Business Innovative Researcthechnology Transfer http:Hacienceenergygovlsbirf Smart Grid rtgrid.htrn Solar America Cities Agency Financial Report Fiscal YearZUl? 12? OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION Solar Energy Visualization and Controls program?peer?review Solar photovolatlc rcesfsola r. Weatherization Assistance Program State Energy Program my? Weatherization 8c Intergovernmental Activities Tank waste processmg Water Power Ethnology Innovatmn Wind Energy vemde TEChn?logles Front Cover: Top Photo: The SunShot initiative will bring the cost of solar energy down by about ?5 percent, making it cost competitive with fossil fuels, like coal. by the end of the decade. Center Left Photo: A National Renewable Energy Laboratory researcher balancing on a board dips samples of algae from a marshy creek in Golden: Colorado. Photo credit: National Renewable Energy Laboratory staff photographer Dennis Schroeder. Center Right Photo: A Turbine is installed at the Rosebud Sioux Reservation in South Dakota. Photo is courtesy of the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy Corporation. Bottom Photo: Dillon Wind Power Project. Back Cover: Tog. Photo: Hybrid vehicles circle. the track at Indianapolis Motor Speedway as part of the inaugural Clean Cities. Stakeholder Summit. DOE's Assistant Secretary for Policy 8. International Affairs drove a Chevy Volt General Motors' new ?plug?in hybrid electric vehicle?. Center Left Photo: Solar Panels. Photo is courtesy of. ARPA-E. Bottom Photo: Dillon Wind Power Project. 128 Agency Financial Report Fiscal Year 2011 US. Department of'Energy Document Number 4 Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Program Code: A1 .PRG Won?oaper Code: A1 .1 Program are: Briefings, Meetings 8; Conference Wompaper Entrance Conference Procedure Eden Entrance Conference Workpaper State: Reviewed Program Code: A1 .PRG Won?oaper Code: A1 .2 Program Trwe: Briefings, Meetings Conference Workpaper ?de: Decision Briefing (Template) Procedure ri?e? Decision Briefing Wonhoapar Stare: Reviewed Program Code: A1 .PRG Wompaper Code: A.1 .3 Program Title: Briefings, Meetings 3: Conference Workpaper Tri?e: Message Meeting {Template} Procedure ?lers Message Meeting Won?oaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: A.1 .PRG Wompaper Code: A1 .4 Program Title: Briefings, Meetings 3; Conference Worrfgoaper Hide: Coordination Draft Report Meeting Procedure Coordination Draft Report Meeting Wompaper State: Reviewed Program Code: A.1 .PRG Wonhoapar Code: A1 .5 Program Tide: Briefings, Meetings 3L Conference Worrhoaper Exit Conference Procedure ??efxit Conference Sandia Wompaper State: Reviewed Workoaper Code: A. 1 .6 Wor?oaper IG Outbrief Attendance Roster Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Program Code: A.1.PRG Program ?de: Briefings, Meetings 8; Conference Procedure ?de:Exit Conference Oak Ridge Worr?oaper Code: Wompaper ?de: Wompaper Stare: Workoaper Code: Wor?oaper ?de: A.4.4 ORNL 81 0 Contract - Dear References Reviewed At .7 080 ATTENDANCE SHEET - OIG ORNL Exit Consulting Admin_040413 Worrhoaper Stare: Worr?oaper Code: Wompaper ?de: Workpaper Stare: Reviewed A124 {bit?irtbi nterview Reviewed Program Code: A2. PRG Program Title: Background Information Procedure Hde.'Departmental Entity r? Contractor Background Program Code: A2. PRG Program Tr'?e: Background Information Procedure ?de:Program r' Project Background Program Code: A3. PRG Program Review of Prior Reports GAO) Procedure OIG Prior Reports Program Code: A3. PRG Program ?de: Review of Prior Reports (DIG GAO) Procedure Prior Reports Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Program Code: A4. PRG Program ?de: Criteria (Laws, Regulations 8; Directives] Procedure ?dePresidential Executive Order Program Code: A4. PRG Program Title: Criteria (Laws, Regulations Directives) Procedure ?de?ode of Federal Regulations Program Code: A4. PRG Program Title: Criteria (Laws, Regulations Directives) Procedure Directives Program Code: A5. PRG Worrhoapar Coda: A.5.1 Program Tri?re: Department Strategichinancial Plans and Performance Worr?oaper ?ute: GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 Results Wompaper State: Reviewed Procedure Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) Program Code: A5. PRG Won?oaper Code: A52 Program Drier Department Strategichinancial Plans and Performance Workpaper DOE Strategic Plan Mayr 2011) Results Workpaper State; Reviewed Procedure ?de?trategio Plan Worrhoapar Coda: A.5.3 Worr?oaper are; DOE Strategic Plan 2-13-2012 GPRA Addendum (February 13, 2012 Update) Workoapar Stare: Reviewed Program Code: A5. PRG Wompaper Code: A.5.4 Program Tide: Department Strategichinancial Plans and Performance Workpaper ?de: DOE FY 2011 Agency Financial Report (DOE- Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Results Procedure ??e?nnual PerformancetFinancial Plans CF-UOBB. November 2011) Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A. 5 . 5 Workoapar Hale: DOE FY 2011 Annual Performance Report February 2012) Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Worrhoapar Code: A. 5 . 6 Won?oaper me: DOE FY 201 1 Summary of Performance and Financial Information. (DOE-CF-DOTO, February 2012) Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: AG. PRG Program Title: Entity Policies Procedures Procedure ??e?eview of entity-specific policies. procedures, and practices. Program Code: PRG Program Titre: Entity Strategic PerformancerFinanical Plans Procedure HuerReview of entity-specific strategic plan Program Code: PRG Program Title: Entity Strategic 8. Performancer?Finanical Plans Procedure Hue-Review of entity-specific performancerfinancial plans Program Code: AB. PRG Program Title: NNSA Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapere Procedure mile. i Program Code: AB. PRG Program Title: NNSA Procedure Program Code: A3. PRG Program Tri?re: NNSA procedure Wompaper Code: A.8.1 Workpaper ?de: Legal uestions Workoaper Stare: Reviewed Wor?oeper Code: A. 8 . 5 Workpaper LASODenialJulyi Workpeper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: A3. PRG Program Tri?re: NNSA Procedure Program Code: A78. PRG Program Tri?re: NNSA Procedure Hue. Program Code: A3. PRG Program True; NNSA Procedure ?deJibii?iaibiUiiCi Program Code: AB. PRG Program ?ue: NNSA first Procedure HH?E?mimm Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory . Procedures Corresponding Workpepere Program Code: AB. PRG Program Tide: NNSA Procedure Hue. Eg?fmbm Program Code: A3. PRG Program Tri?re: NNSA Procedure ride ngb?n two Program Code: A6. PRG Workoaper Code: A.8.2 Program Tri?re: NNSA Worr?oeper ?de: Sandie Site Office Reviewmnm?ibnmc} Procedure ?de 2 Wompaoer Stare: Reviewed Program Code: A9. PRG Worr?oaper Code: A919 Program SNL Wompaper (bii?iribimici CPA Rev 0 3-25-09 Procedure ?de Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: A9. PRG Program Tide: SNL Procedure ?de: (bii?ir First Program Code: A3. PHL: Program Tide: SNL Procedure I Program Code: A9. PRG Program Tide: SNL {bit?istbii?i?. . Review. of. Contracting. Issues. at Les. Alamos. National. Laboratory. . Procedures. Corresponding Workpapers. Program Code: A.9. PRG. Program mite: SNL procedm Program Code: A3. PRG Womapgr Coda; A93 Program Tri?re: SNL Worr?oeper mite: tbii?isibi?'i email. Procedure ride {bit?istbiimci Wompaper State: (G) Reviewed Program Code: A. 1 DPRG Program ?rre: LANL procedure ibit?irtbiiTitGi Program Code: A. 1 OPRG Program mite: LANL procedure 73-ye- tbii?isibi?'iici Program Code: A. 1 DPRG Program ?rre: LANL Procurement Program Code: .PRG Workoaper Code: A.10.1 Program Title: LANL Worr?oeper mite: POIS Procedure True (bit?iaibi??nci Werr'rpaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: A. 1 OPRG Worr?oaper Code: A.1D.2 Program mite: LANL Wompaper ?de: IAS Activity Reports Procedure ?delibuairibmuci Workoaper Stare: Reviewed {bii?isibii?ic Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Program Code: A.10.PRG Program Title: LANL Procedure ?de. (bum?mnmm Wompaper Code: Workpaper Hide: Wor?oaper Stare: Won?oaper Code: Wompaper nae.- Wor?oapar Stare: Wormoaper Code: Wompaper Workpaper Stare: Wor?oaper Code: Wompaper Workpaper Stare: Wor?oaper Code: Won?oaper Wompaper Stare: A102 IAS Activity Reports Reviewed A103 Example of Each Reviewed A104 IAS Miscode Correspondence Reviewed A.10.5 {bii?isibi??iici emails Reviewed A106 Unsigned Invoice Emails Reviewed Program Code: A.10.PRG Program are: LANL Pneoednre Ede. 1 Program Code: A.10.PRG Program are; LANL Procedure WEI?(bushibnmci Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Program Code: A.10.PRG Program are: LANL procedum 7mg- thit?ubit?tci Program Code: A. 1 OPRG Program Title: LANL Procedure Ho's (giigisib) Program Coda: A.1 1.PRG Program Tri?re: Nevada pmedum ?ge: ibii?iaibiiTiiGi Program Code: A. 1 2.PRG Wonhoapar Coda: A.12.1 Program Tri?ra: Oakridge Worr?oaper We: Oakeidgeibnm?mm?c) 400010643? Invoice Procedure ??e?wo consulting agreements 1 Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Workoapar Coda: A. 1 2 .2 Wompaper OakRidge ibii?ivibimici 4000106437r Invoice 2 Wonhoapar Stare: Reviewed Won?oaper Code: A. 1 2 . 3 Wompaper Dal-(Ridge 4000098848Invoice Workpaper Stare: Rev iewe Program Code: A. 1 2.PRG Wompaper Code: A.12.4 Program T?ie: Oakridge Workpaper nterview (THC) Ibii?iaibiim? Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapere I. .. april 9 Worr?oaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: (3.1 .PRG Program Tri?ra: Subobjective - CPA Procedure ?demew Item Program Code: D.I .PRG Program Tri?re: Subobjeotive - Invoices Procedure ?dewew Item Program Code: D.2.PRG Program Tri?ra: LANL Procedure mire-New Item Program Code: D.3.PRG Wompager Code: A.4.6 Program Tr'?e: SNL Workpaper Hide: FAR 31 .205-33{f} Procedure ?de?nvoices not in line Won?oaper Stare: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A. 9.1 3 Workpaper nae; oPARevs Wonhoaper Stare: Reviewed Won?oaper Code: A9. 1 Wompaper ?de: SandialnvoiceRequirernent Workoaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: D.3.PRG Wompaper Code: A.4.6 Program Tue; SNL Workpaper nae; FAR 31 .205-330?) Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Procedure mile-No direct evidence Worr?oaper Stare: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A. 9 . 2 Workpaper mile: HAW Schedule and Activties 1O 03 12 Worr?oaper Stare: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A. 9 . 9 Worrhoaper Ede: lbii?laibii?icl CPA Rev 0 3?25?09 Worr?oeper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: D.4.PRG Workpaper Code: D. 1 .1 Program Tr'?e: Nevada Worr?oaper use-.- Excel Document Procedurell ?demo detail invoices Nevada Workpaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A4 . 6 Worrhoaper Ede: FAR 31 .205-33{f) Worr?oeper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: D.5.PRG Workoaper Code: D. 1 .1 Program Tr'?e: Oakridge Worr?oaper use: Excel Document Procedurell ?demo support invoices Workpaper State: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A4 . 6 Worrhoaper Ede: FAR 31 .205-33{f) Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Program Code: D.5.PRG Program ?de: Oakridge Procedure ?de:New Item Program Code: E.1.PRG Program Tri?re: Subobjeotive - Deliverables Procedure ?de:New Item Program Code: E.3. PRG Workoaper Code: A.9.1i Program Tide: SNL Wor?oeper ?de: SSJ No Business this wayibn?ivibiimc) Procedure ?de:summary don't do business Workpaper State: Reviewed Program Code: E.3. PRG Won?oaper Code: A99 Program use: SNL Wompaper use: ?bn?l?ibm?c? CPA Rev 0 3-25-09 Procedure ?demo del requirement Workpaper State: Reviewed Workoaper Code: A. 9.1 3 Wompaper mite: Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Wonhoaper Code: 11.9.1 4 Won?oeper mite: SandiaCPARev?i to4 Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: E.3.PRG Wor?oeper Code: A.8.2 Program SNL Workpaper ?de: Sandie Site Office Review Procedure ?demo del language in task orders Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapere Won?oaper Code: A9. 1 3 Wotkpaper ?tte: CPA Rev5 Workpaper State: Reviewed Workoaper Code: A. 9.1 5 Wor?oaper Tt?e: SandiaTaskOrder610t0311 Wotkpaper State: Reviewed Program Code: E.3. PRG Won?oaper Code: D. 1 . 1 Program ?tte: SN Workpaper ?tte: Excel Docu me nt Procedure H?emo delive rabies Workpaper State: Reviewed Wor?oaper Code: A4 . 6 Wotkpaper ?tte: FAR 31 .205-33{f) Workpaper State: Reviewed Wonhoaper Code: A. 9 . 5 Won?oaper Tt?e: Deliverablesjoaaogm Workpaper State: Reviewed Wonhoaper Code: A. 9 . 6 Won?oaper Tt?e: Wotkpaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: D. 1 .55 Workoapar mite: Wotkpaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A4. 1 2 Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Won?oaper mite: FAR31 .2 Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Workpeper Code: A. 9 . 21 Workoaper Hide: IG Request for Information Wor?oaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: E.3. PRG Wonhoaper Code: A.9.1 1 Program Tri?re: SNL Won?oaper mite: SSJ No Business this way (bit?ivibii?ici Procedure ?de. Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: E.3. PRG Won?oaper Code: A.4.6 Program ?de: SNL Wompaper mite: FAR 31 .205-33{f) Procedure ?de'Contraot File Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Wonhoaper Code: A. 9 . 2 Won?oaper mite: HAW Schedule and Aotivties 10 03 12 Workoaper Stare: Reviewed Wor?oaper Code: A9 . 9 Wompaper We: ibii?hibimici CPA Rev 0 3-25-09 Wompeper Stare: Reviewed Worihoaper Code: A. 9.1 3 Wompaper mite: CPA Revs Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapere Worr?oaper Code: A9. 1 4 Wompaper ?tte: SandiaCPARev?i to4 Wompaper State: Reviewed Workoaper Code: A. 9.1 5 Worr?oaper Tri?e: SandiaTaskOrder610t0311 Wompaper State: Reviewed Worrhoaper Code: . 3. 1 Won?oaper Tri?e: Sandiainvoioe Wompaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: D. 1 .55 Wor?oaper Hare: Wompaper State: Reviewed Program Code: E.3.PRG Program Tri?re: SNL Procedure monitoring Program Code: E.4. PRG Workoaper Code: A1 1 .2 Program Titre: Nevada Worr?oaper Tri?e: Eggfga?ib? Email (No Deliverables) Deliverables Wompaper State: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A. 1 1 .3 Worrhoapar Etta: Nevada no del \loies (2) Wompaper State: Reviewed Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Program Code: E.5. PRG Won?oaper Code: E.5.1 Program Hie: Oakridge Wompaper Oakridge_Req for docu me ntation_ Procedure deliverables Workpaper State: Reviewed Workoapar Code: A. 2 .6 Wor?oaper Oak Riddge DIG Request for Contract Info Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: F.1 .PRG Won?oaper Code: A.8.1 Program Hie: Subobjective - Pressure Wompaper Legal InvolvementLASOCuestions?alt?l Procedure ??emnusual circumstances Workpaper State: Reviewed Wor?oaper Code: A4 . 8 Wompaper We: LANL Contract with Egti?ivibim Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Wonhoapar Code: A. 9.1 Won?oaper ?nite: SSJ No Business this way Wompaper Reviewed Wonhoapar Code: A. 8 .4 Won?oaper are; Draft LASO Denial Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A.8 . 5 Workoapar Hate: ulyt Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A. 9 . 2 0 219.1(7th Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Won?oaper Ef?e: Rome roA Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: F.1 .PRG Womapgr Coda; A34 Program T?r?e: Subobjeotive - Pressore Won?oaper Ef?e: Draft LASO Denial Procedure Edemo evidence on pressure Workpaper State: Reviewed Wonhoapar Code: A. 8 . 5 Won?oaper Ef?e: ulvi Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: F.1 .PRG Won?oaper Code: ABA Program Ef?e: Subobjeotive - Pressure Wompaper Ef?e: Draft LASO Denial Procedure ??e?ifferenoes Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Wonhoapar Code: A. 8 . 5 Won?oaper Ef?e: ulvi Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: G. 1 .PRG Won?oaper Code: . 3. 1 Program Ef?e: Subobjeotive - Duplicative Wompaper Ef?e: Sandiainvoice Procedure E?e?nsuf?oient documentation Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Won?oaper Code: .4. 1 Wompaper Ef?e: VegasOakRidge Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Program Code: G. 1 .PRG Wompaper Code: D.3.1 Program Title: Subobjective - Duplicative Workpaper Tri?e: Sandiainvoice Procedure ?de:Primary users Worrhoaper Stare: Reviewed Won?oaper Code: .4. 1 Workpaper VegasOakRidge Wonhoaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: G. 1 .PRG Wompaper Code: A.8.5 Program Title: Subobjective - Duplicative Workpaper use: LASODenialJuly1 Procedure ?demo Sandie Process Won?oaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: G. 1 .PRG Program Tri?ra: Subobjective - Duplicative Procedure ??e?andia unaware Program Code: G. 1 .PRG Program Tri?ia: Subobjeotive - Duplicative Procedure mire-no deprcont process Program Code: G. 1 .PRG Program Tri?ra: Subobjeotive - Duplicative Procedure ?demew Item Program Code: H.1.PRG Wompaper Code: D. 1 .1 Program Tri?ia: Summaries Workoapar Hide: Excel Document Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory ,(bimici Procedures Corresponding Workpapere Procedure mile-Summ 1 Won?oaper Stare: Reviewed Wompaper Code: D. 1 .2 Workpeper ?de: LANL QZEBTQ Workoaper Stare: Reviewed Wor?oaper Code: D. 1 .20 Workpaper ?de: LANL K27216 Worihoaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: .1 .PRG Wompaper Code: A.4.8 Program Tue; Summaries Workpeper mire; LANL Contract with Procedure ?demrohibited activities Summ Wor?oaper Stare: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A. 9 . 9 Workpaper Hide: (bii?itibi??iici CPA Rev 0 3-25-09 Worihoaper Stare: Reviewed Won?oeper Code: A. 8 . 3 Wempeper ode: Sandie Site Offieeibii?it?b?m?c? Wonhoaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: .1 .PRG Workpaper Code: D. 1 .1 Program Tide: Summaries Workpaper ?de: Excel Document Procedure ?de:8umm2 Worihoaper Stare: Reviewed Workpaper Code: D. 1 .2 Workpaper Hide: LANL Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Won?oaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A4 . 6 Workpaper FAR Workoaper State: Reviewed Wor?oaper Code: A. 1 0.1 6 Wompaper ?gs; email Worihoapar State: Reviewed Program Code: .1 .PRG Workpaper Code: A.4.8 Program Titre; Summaries Workpaper LANL Contract with Ea?m?mm Procedure ?de:8umm3 Wor?oaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A. 1 0.1 3 Workpaper Hide: LANL Draft Statement of Work Draft Worihoapar State: Reviewed Program Code: .1 PRO: Workpaper Code: Program Titre: Summaries Workoaper Hate: Investigations ssue Procedure ?de:Further review DIG Wor?oaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A8 2 .f Workpaper ?de: Contact with Investigations Worihoapar State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A8 2 . Workpaper ?de: Possible Prohibited Activities Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Won?oaper Stare: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A8 2. Workpaper mite: Investigationcoord Workoaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: .1 .PRG Workpaper Code: A829 Program Tide: Summaries Workoaper Hide: Possible Prohibited Activities Procedure ?demccur of prohibited activities Won?oaper Stare: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A8 2. Workpaper mite: Investigationcoord Wor?oaper Stare: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A. 9. 1 8 Workpaper Hide: advioetoSandia Worihoaper Stare: Reviewed Won?oaper Code: A. 0.1 8 Workpaper FW Possible Prohibited Activities Wor?oaper Stare: Reviewed Won?oaper Code: A. 0.21 Workpaper mite: E-mail Eg?giftbi PPA Workpaper Stare: Reviev red Workoaper Code: A. 0.22 Workpaper Prohibited Activities Workpeper Stare; Reviewed Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Wormaper Code: A. 1 0.23 Workpaper LANL Consulting Web Pages Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Workoaper Code: A. 1 0 .24 Wor?oaper LANL Consulting Email Sample Workpaper State: Reviewed Program Code: H.1PRG Womper Code: Program Hie: Summaries Workpaper (gnm?tmm email Procedure HHEraised concerns Workpaper State: Reviewed Wor?oaper Code: A8 2 . Workpaper Possible Prohibited Activities Workpaper State: Reviewed Wor?oapar Code: A8 2. Won?caper mile: Investigationcoord Workpaper State: Reviewed War?oaper Code: A. 9.1 8 Wormaper mile: advicetoSandia Wompaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A. 1 0.1 Warkoaper Hale: FW Possible Prohibited Activities Workpaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A. 1 0.21 Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapere Wen?oaper E-mai??ap?mm PPA Workpaper State: Reviewed Wedrpaper Code: A. 1 0.22 Workoaper Hale: Prohibited Activities Wor?oaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A. 1 0.23 Wer?oaper Hide: LANL Consulting Web Pages Wen?oaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A. 1 0 .24 Workpeper LANL Consulting Email Sample Wer?oaper State: Reviewed Program Code: H.1.PRG Workpaper Code: A.4.1 Program Tittle: Summaries Wer?oaper Hide: SNL 8; 0 Contract - DEAR References Procedure ?tte:Recommendation One Wen?oaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A4 . 2 Wer?oaper Hide: LANL Contraoat - DEAR Reference Wen?oaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A4 . 3 Wedrpaper ?de: NNSS 0 Contract - Dear References Workoaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A4 .4 Wedrpaper Tide: ORNL 0 Contract - Dear References Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapere Wormaper State: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A4 . 5 Workpaper Tt?'e: DEAR - 9T0.5232-2 97"05244-1 Workaapar State: Reviewed Wer?aaper Code: A4 . 6 Workpaper ?tte: FAR Wor?oapar State: Reviewed Womaper Code: A4 . 7 Wempeper SNL CONTRACT with Workpaper State: Reviewed War?oapar Code: A4 . 8 Wempeper LANL Contract witt Workpaper State: Reviewed Workaapar Code: A. 9 . 8 Wer?aaper Egtm?mm email Workpaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A. 9 . 9 Wonhoaper Tt?e: ibii?iaibimici CPA Rev 0 3-25-09 Workpaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A. 8 . 2 Weweper We; Sandie Site Office Review Wormaper State: Reviewed Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Program Code: H.1.PRG Program Hie: Summaries Procedure Ho'e?eoommendation Two Won?oaper Code: Wompaper mite: Wompaper Stare: Workoapar Code: Wor?oaper Wompaper Stare: Wonhoapar Coda: Won?oaper ?nite: Wompaper Stare: Workpaper Code: Wonhoapar Hate: Wompaper Stare: Wompaper Code: Workoapar Hate: Teohnical Surprise Wompaper Stare: Wompaper Code: Won?oaper ?nite: Wompaper Stare: A43 LANL Contract with ibii?iribi Reviewed A.9.9 CPA Rev 3-25-09 Reviewed A.9.12 Memos with M0 Contract Strategy Reviewed A.8.3 Sandie Site Office Denia Reviewed A1 0.14 - - - Memo for (me) DIA and and Reviewed A.2.5 PoliovFlash Reviewed Program Code: H.1.PRG Program Summaries Procedure ??e?ummary on Sandia Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Program Code: .1 .PRG Won?oaper Code: A82. in Program mite: Summaries Wompaper Hotline Referral Procedure NSA Request Workpaper State: Reviewed Workoapar Code: A8 3. a Wor?oaper LANL Consulting 03222013 A Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: .1 .PRG Won?oaper Code: D. 1 . 1 Program mite: Summaries Wompaper Excel Document Procedure ??emverall summary del and invoices Workpaper State: Reviewed Wor?oaper Code: A4 . 8 Wompaper LANL Contract with Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Wonhoapar Coda: A.4.1 0 Won?oaper ?nite: ORNL Contracts (4) with ?tm?tbnn Wompaper Reviewed Wonhoapar Code: A. 1 1 .1 Wait-mam!- ?ge: A Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A. 9 . 9 Workoapar Ho's: PA Rev 3-25-09 Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A. 9.1 0 Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapere Won?oaper Ttde: Initial Cons Agreement Wompaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A. i 0.1 Wantgoaper Tide: ibii?i?tbimici email Wor?oaper State: Reviewed Program Code: .1 .PRG Wor?oaper Code: A.4.8 Program Tide: Summaries Won?oaper LANL Contract with (mm-1 Procedure ?tte:Responsible COs Wompaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A4 . 9 Wamper ?ee; Contract with Wompaper State: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A. 9 . 9 Worihoaper Ttde: CPA Rev 0 3-25-09 Won?oaper State: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A. i 0.1 3 Workoaper Hide: LANL Draft Statement of Work Draft Won?oaper State: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A. i 2 .4 Workpaper Hate: Egt??mm nterview Workoaper State: Reviewed Program Code: H.1.PRG Workpaper Code: A.4.6 attaitt'itci Review. of. Contracting. Issues. at Les. Alamos. National. Laboratory. Procedures. Corresponding Workpapers Program Tr'tte: Summaries Wor?oaper one: FAR Procedure 7?tte:Recorn mend ation Three Wompaper State: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A4 . 8 Workoaper Hate: LANL Contract with Eggfgim} Wor?oaper State: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A.4.1 1 Worihoapar FAC 2005-56 April 2 2012 Womaper State: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A. 9. 1 2 Workpaper Memos. with M0. Contract Strategy Wonhoapar State: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A. 1 0.14 Workpaper nee: Memo rm fattest? - DIA and Scientific and Technical Surprise Wor?oaper State: Reviewed Program Code: .1 .PRG Wonhoapar Coda: A.8.1O Program Tr'tte: Summaries Wor?oaper one: Awardfees Procedure 7?tte:Recornrnendation Four Wompaper State: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A2 . 6 Workoapar Hate: APM Wompaper State: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A.4.1 3 Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Worr?oaper are: Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: H.1.PRG Program Tri?re: Summaries Procedure ?de?ummti Program Code: .1 .PRG Waf?e?; Coda; A43 Program Title: Summaries Wor?oaper ?de: LANL Contract with Egg??tb} Procedure 5 Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Workpaper Code: A. 1 0.1 6 Worr?oaper use: email c) follow up Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: .1 .PRG Workoapar Coda: D. 1 .1 Program Title: Summaries Wompaper Excel Document Procedure ?de?ask Order REQ Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Worrhoapar Code: A4 . 8 Worr?oaper use: LANL Contract with Eggfg?m} Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: .1 PRO Wor?oaper Code: D. 1 . 1 Program Title: Summaries Wompaper Excel Document Procedure ?de?TR Evidence Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapere Won?oaper Code: A. 1 0.1 7' Wompaper Eg??iribim email Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: .1 PRO Won?oaper Code: A.8.1 Program THIS: Summaries Workpaper Hale: Legal InvolvemenlLASOCCm 1ueslions Procedure Contract File Wonhoapor Stare: Reviewed Won?oaper Code: A4 . 8 Wompaper LANL Contract with Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Wor?oaper Code: . 2. 1 Wompaper TABLE OF CONTENTS orgg?giflbl (2) Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Worlhoapor Code: A. 1 0.1 Won?oaper mile: E?l?lslbim email Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: .1 PRO Wor?oaper Code: A.8.1 Proger Summaries Wompaper Legal InvolvementLASOCC ouestiondbii?l Procedure ??e?rior LANL Knowledge Workpaper ?are; Reviewed Worlhoapor Code: D. 1 . 1 Workpaper Excel Document Workpaper Stare: Reviewed sibiimci Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory ,(bimtci Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Won?oaper Code: A4 . 6 Wompaper FAR 31 .205-33{f} Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Workoapor Code: A4 . 8 Wor?oaper mite: LANL Contract with Wompaper State: Reviewed Wor?oapor Code: A. 0 . Won?oaper ?nite: LANL Email_ RE: Risks and Concerns Wompaper State: Reviewed Program Code: .1 PRO Wor?oaper Code: A.4.8 Program Summaries Workpaper LANL Contract with {bus} Procedure ??e?ask order so pe rate Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Wor?oapor Code: A. 8 .4 Won?oaper ?nite: Draft LASO Denial Wompaper State: Reviewed Wor?oapor Code: A. 8 . 5 Won?oaper ore: ulyt Wompaper State: Reviewed Program Code: .1 .PRG Wor?oapor Code: A.9.12 Program ore: Summaries Workpaper Memos with M0 Contract Strategy Procedure H?e:email Sandia Concerns Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Won?oaper Code: A. 8 . 3 Wompaper True: Sandie Site Office Denial Workpaper Stare: Reviewed Workoaper Code: A. 0.14 Wor?oaper me.- Iviemo for Ewart?) - DIA and Scientific and Technical Surprise Wonhoaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: Wompaper Code: A.8.T Program Tue; Summaries Workpaper use: LANLDisallow Cost- Eagl?l?lblm Procedure Huerfully reimbursed Wor?oaper Stare: Reviewed Wompaper Code: A.8 . 9 Workpaper use: NOI to Disallow Costs Associated with Sandia Corporation Consultant Purcase Agreement 9051'.? with Heather Wilson and Company LLC Wompaper Stare: Reviewed Program Code: I.1.PRG Program Title: Briefings Procedure Exit Program Code: I.1.PRG Program ?ue: Briefings Procedure HEESNL Outbriefing Review of Contracting Issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory Procedures Corresponding Workpapers Program Code: I.1.PRG Program ?de: Briefings Procedure ?de?ak Ridge Outbriefing Program Code: Program Tri?re: Briefings Procedure ?de:Ne\rada Exit Program Code: Program Tide: Briefings Procedure ?deiANL Outbriefing Program Code: Program Tri?re: Briefings Procedure ?de??evada Outbriefing Program Code: Program Tri?re: Briefings Procedure ?defxit Conference Oak Ridge Program Code: Program Tri?re: Briefings Procedure ?de:Exit Conference Sandie Document Number 16 FY 2012 Sandia Corporation PER Summary National Nuclear Security Administration Page I of 2 OurMission AboutUe MediaRoom FederalEmpby'ment Blog FY 2012 Sandia Corporation PER Summary Home 3 About Us Our Operations 5 Acouisition and Project Management Performance Evaluations F?i? 2012 Sandie Corporatior PER Sumrrarv FY 2012 Sandie Corporation PER Summary To" SUMMARY OF FY 2012 SANDIA CORPORATION AWARD FEE DETERMINATION fr Total Available Fee Total Fee Earned "in Related Lin kg Press Releases Sandie Corporation. the management and operating contractor for Sandia National Laboratories. earned a 'Very Good" rating in Program and Institutional Management and Business, a 'Good" in Operations. and 9?.5 peroentol'the possible incentive fee Pleadlintu from the National Nuclear Security Administration for its ?scal you 2012 performance. Apr 5. 2013 US Rerr'oves Last Remain rg HEU fro'n Czecn Reouolic Sets Nonp'oliteration For a copy ofthe full Perl'onnance Evaluation Report please contact NNSA Pub ic Aha rs. Milestone Prrter-fr ardlv version Mar 22. 2013 LIE, Netnerlands Exoano Partnership to Seaare Radiological lv'later ale Worldwide Mar 11. 2013 Husa. Temple Univere 1y Successfully Remove Radiological Device tron" Campus Medical ng Mar 3. 2013 Conducts Rad ologica T'airing tor Jordanian Iraci Of?licials er?ill 6 Timeline Curious about NNSA history" Check out our interactive timelineto leam about our historic accomplishments! View NHSA Tlmellne i (larccre 4f9f2013 Document Number 17 FY 2012 Los Alamos National Security, LLC, PER SLunmary 1 National Nuclear Page 1 of 2 Ourti'llssion AboutUs MediaRoom FederaiEmplovment Slog FY 2012 Los Alamos National Security, LLC, PER Summary Home 5 About Us Our Operations Acquisition and Project Management Perlormance Evaluations FY 2012 Los Alamos Nat-anal Security LLC. FY 2012 Lo: Alamoa National Security, PER Summary You 1: SUMMARY OF FY 2012 LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL SECURITY. LLC, AWARD FEE DETERMINATION 1 Related Links Total Available Fee Total Fee Earned to $74,510,494 359341.054 30% Fare? Releases Los Alamos National Sammy, LLC. the management and operating contractor for the Los Alamos National Laboratory. earner: a a ?Very Good" rating in Program. a "Good" in Operations. a 'Satistaotonf in Institutional Management and Business. and 60 percent of the possible incentive tee from the National Nuclear Seourity Administration for its ?scal year 2012 performance. Apr 5 2013 US Removes Last Remain-r; HELJ from Czecn Reouolic. Sets Nonp'oliferatio'i Muiestone For a cop}.r ot the full Performance Evaluation Report please contact NNSA Alta-rs. Mar 22. 21:13 U5 Netherar?ds Expanc a Printer-frienaiv version panrersqip 1o segue Radiological Materia-s Worlow'oe Mar 11, 2013 Temp'e university Successfully Remove Radiological Device tror'" Campus Medica- ELiId-ng Mar 8, 2013 NNSA Conducts REICHD og cal Training for Jordan as. an G't'ciais View All 1" Tlmeline Curious about NNSA history? Check out our interactive timeline to learn about our historic accomplishments! 'tr?law NNSA TII't'IelirtE i Careers httpu?fnnsaenergy. gov! aboutusfo uroperatiortsf apmf perfevalsf 12111520 1 2per #922013 Document Number 22 U.S. Department of Energy ORDER DOE 0 321.1 Washington, D.C. 030(5) Approved: 11-00-06 SUBJECT: EMPLOYMENT OF EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS PURPOSE. To maintain a system of controls and oversight necessary for the Department of Energy (DOE) to assure compliance with 5 U.S.C. 3109, ?Employment of Experts and Consultants, Temporary or Intermittent"; Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 304, ?Expert and Consultant Appointments"; and all other relevant rules, regulations, and DOE directives. CANCELLATION. DOE 3304. 1A, Employment of Experts and Cansultants, dated 6-23-92. Cancellation of an Order does not, by itself, modify or otherwise affect any contractual obligation to comply with the Order. Cancelled Orders incorporated by reference in a contract remain in effect until the contract is modi?ed to delete references to requirements in the cancelled Orders. APPLICABILITY. a. Departmental Elements. This Order applies to all Departmental elements. (Go to for the most current listing of Departmental elements. This Order automatically applies to Departmental elements created after the Order is issued.) The Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NN SA) will assure that NNSA employees comply with their respective responsibilities under this Order. Nothing in this Order will be construed to interfere with the NNSA Administrator?s authority under section 3212(d) of Public Law (P.L.) 106-65, National Nuclear Security Administration Act [Title 32), to establish Administration-speci?c policies, unless disapproved by the Secretary. b. Contractors. This Order does not apply to contractors or the procurement of services by contractors. c. Exclusions. None. REQUIREMENTS. See speci?c requirements in Chapters I to IV. RESPONSIBILITIES. a. Of?ce of the Secretary of Energy. Subject to statutory provisionsz'limitations, exercises appointment authority and determines the initial daily rate of pay for experts and consultants. AVAILABLE ONLINE AT: INITIATED BY: Of?ce of Human Capital Manage-mom DOE 0 321.] 11-06-06 Office of Assistant General Counsel for General Law. (1) Provides conflict of interest clearance for all potential expertsa?consultants. (2) Provides written advice to experts;f consultants. (3) Maintains appropriate records. Of?ce of Securi? and Safety Performance Assurance. Processes security forms, requests appropriate investigations, grants access authorizations when appropriate, and maintains records of potential Expertsf consultants to be hired at Headquarters. Headquarters Departmental Elements and National Nuclear Securitv Administration. (1) Heads of Headguarters Departmental Elements Using Expert or Consultant Services. Assure compliance with the requirements of this Directive by their staff and by the experts and consultants employed by their organization. Concur in requests for expert or consultant services initiated within their organizationI and certify that the proposed uses of services are in compliance with governing regulations. As appropriate, provide documentation to the Of?ce of Human Capital Management as required by OPM. Depug Chief Human Capital Of?cerfDirector, Office of Human Capital Management. and Associate Administrator for Management and Administration, National Nuclear Security Administration. Are responsible for ?nal approval of personnel actions relating to the appointment of experts and consultants by organizations within the scope of their authority. Administer the oath of of?ce and execute appointment af?davits for experts and consultants employed in their respective organizations. (3) Deputy Chief Human Capital Of?cerfDirector, Of?ce of Human Capital Management. Annually provides 0PM the number of days each experUconsultant was employed by the Department and the total amount each experUconsultant was paid. DOE 321.] 11-06-06 Maintains information on appropriate rate of basic pay. He_ads of Field Elements with delegated personnel authority. (1) Approve expertz?consultant services for the ?eld and certify such services are necessary and in compliance with governing policies and regulations. (2) Administer the oath of of?ce and executive appointment af?davits for experts and consultant employed in their respective organizations. Of?ce of the In?eetor General, Of?ce of Resource Management. (1) Initiates requests for and certi?es that proposed uses of services are in compliance with governing regulations. (2) Approves expert and consultant services for the Of?ce of the Inspector General. (3) Provides for administration of oaths of of?ce and execution of appointment af?davits. 6. DEFINITIONS. Definitions are in Appendix A. REFERENCES. The following references are the source of requirements for this Order andfor provide additional guidance:i information for its implementation. 3.. Executive Order 12674, ?Principles of Ethical Conduct for Government Of?cers and Employees,? dated April 12, 1989, as modi?ed. Executive Order 12731, ?Principles of Ethical Conduct for Government Of?cers and Employees," dated October 1990. Title 32 of P.L. 106-65, the National Nuclear Security Administration Act, as amended. Title 5 CFR Part 304, ?Expert and Consultant Appointments." Title 5 CFR 2635, ?Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch." Title 5 U.S.C., Section 3109, ?Employment of Experts and Consultants; Temporary or Intermittent." Title 5 U.S.C., Chapter 51, ?Classi?cation? [of positions]. Title 5 U.S.C., Chapter 53, ?Pay Rates and Systems." 4 DOE 321.1 11-06-06 i. Title 5 U.S.C., Section 5533, ?Dual Pay from More Than One Position; Limitations; Exceptions.? j. Title 5 U.S.C., Chapter 63, ?Leave.? k. Title 5 U.S.C., Chapter 81, ?Compensation for Work Injuries." 1. Title 18 U.S.C., Section 203, ?Compensation to Members of Congress, Of?cers, and Others in Matters Affecting the Government.? m. Title 18 U.S.C., Section 205, ?Activities of Of?cers and Employees in Claims Against and Other Matters Affecting the Government." 11. Title 18 U.S.C., Section 20?, ?Restrictions on Former Officers, Employees, and Elected Of?cials of the Executive and Legislative Branches." 0. Title 18 U.S.C., Section 208, ?Acts Affecting a Personal Financial Interest." p. DOE Secretarial Delegations of Authority?s Website: .html 8. CONTACT. Questions concerning this Order should be directed to the Deputy Chief Human Capital Of?cerfDirector, Of?ce of Human Capital Management, 202-586-8450. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY: CLAY SELL Deputy Secretary DOE 321.] 11-06-06 CHAPTER I. APPOINTMENT, REAPPOINTMENT, AND . Adherence to Fair Hiring Required .. .. T4 5? 5" :4 CHAPTER II. COMPENSATION AND PAY 1 Rate 2. 3. 11-2 4 5 CHAPTER STANDARDS OF .. . 1. 2. 3. CONTENTS Initial Appointments Appointment Offers . ..II-1 Dual Employment and .. 11-2 .. . Financial Disclosure Reporting Requirements APPENDIX B. US. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FORM 3304.1, APPROVAL OF EXPERT OR CONSULTANT EMPLOYMENT REQUEST APPENDIX C. SAMPLE WAIVER OF COMPENSATION APPENDIX D. SAMPLE LETTER OF APPENDIX E. EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS FOR EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF i (and ii) 1-1 1-1 1-3 1-4 11-1 11-1 11-2 DOE 0 321.1 11-06-06 CHAPTER I. APPOINTMENT, REAPPOINTMEN T, AND TERDIINATION 1. BACKGROUND. The Department of Energy (DOE) uses experts and consultants to provide professional or technical expertise that does not exist or is not readily available within DOE or to perform services that are not of a continuing nature andfor could not be performed by DOE employees in competitive or other permanent full-time positions. 2. ADHERENCE TO FAIR HIRING PRACTICES. Selection of experts and consultants will be made without regard to nonmerit factors such as color, religion, sex, age, or national origin. 3. INITIAL APPOINTMENTS. According to 5 U.S.C. 3109, the Department may employ experts and consultants on a temporary basis (up to 1 year) or on a strictly intermittent basis without time limit or for any period determined by DOE without regard to the civil service and classi?cation laws such appointments are exempt from competitive examination, position classi?cation, and the General Schedule pay rates). a. Expert/consultant appointments must meet the following requirements. (1) Positions must be expert or consultant positions. (2) Persons employed as expertsi'consultants mu st be quali?ed to perform the duties of the positions to which they have been appointed. (3) Needed services must be of such a nature that the Department can meet the need by temporary or intermittent employment. b. Expert! consultant appointments must not be used for any of the following. (1) Positions requiring Presidential appointment. (However, subject to the conditions of the authorizing legislation, the Department may appoint an individual awaiting ?nal action on a Presidential appointment to an expert or consultant p0sition). (2) Positions in the Senior Executive Service. (3) Positions involving managerial or supervisory work (although an expertfconsultant may act as team leader or director of the speci?c project for which heishe is hired), making ?nal decision on substantive policies, or functioning in the Department?s chain of command approving ?nancial transactions or personnel actions). (4) Positions involving work usually performed by regular employees. (5) Substitutes for permanent, full-time jobs; to ?ll in for regular employees during staff shortages; or to bypass normal employment procedures andfor General Schedule pay rates. Document Number 23 PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 GPRA MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2010 124 STAT. 3866 Jan. 4, 2{]11 2142I GPRA Modernization Act ot'E?lD. 31 USC 1101 note. Deadl i no. Public in formation. Web posting. Notification. PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 Public Law 111?352 111th Congress An Act To require quarterly performance assessments of Government programs for purposes of assessing agency performance and improvement, and to establish agency per? formance improvement of?cers and the Performance Improvement lflouncil. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States ofArnerica in Congress assembted, SECTION 1. SHORT TABLE OF CONTENTS. SHORT Act may be cited as the Mod? ernization Act of 2010?. Taste. or CUNTENTs. is as follows: The table of contents for this Act Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 2. Strategic planning amendments. Sec. 3. Performance planning amendments. Sec. 4. Performance reporting amendments. Sec. 5. Federal Government and agency priority goals. Sec. ti. Quarterly priority progress reviews and use of performance information. Sec. 7. Transparency of Federal Government programs, priority goals, and results. See. 8. Agency Chief Operating Officers. Sec. 9. Agency Performance Improvement Officers and the Performance Improve- ment Council. Sec. 1'0. Format of performance plans and reports. Sec. 11. Reducing duplicative and outdated agency reporting. Sec. 12. Performance management skills and competencies. Sec. 13. Technical and conforming amendments. Sec. 14. Implementation of this Act. Sec. 15. Congressional oversight and legislation. SEC. 2. STRATEGIC PLANNING AMENDMENTS. Chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking section 306 and inserting the following: ?ii 306. Agency strategic plans ?(all Not later than the first Monday in February of any year following the year in which the term of the President commences under section 101 of title 3, the head of each agency shall make available on the public website of the agency a strategic plan and notify the President and Congress of its availability. Such plan shall contain? ?tll a comprehensive mission statement covering the major functions and operations of the agency; general goals and objectives, including outcome-ori- ented goals, for the major functions and operations of the agency; a description ofhow any goals and objectives contribute to the Federal Government priority goals required by section 112Uta) oftitle 31; PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 124 STAT. 3867 a description of how the goals and objectives are to be achieved, including? a description of the operational processes, skills and technology, and the human, capital, information, and other resources required to achieve those goals and objec- tives; and a description of how the agency is working with other agencies to achieve its goals and objectives as well as relevant Federal Government priority goals; a description of how the goals and objectives incor? porate views and suggestions obtained through congressional consultations required under subsection a desoription of how the performance goals provided in the plan required by section 1115(a) of title 31, including the agency priority goals required by section 1120fb} of title 31, if applicable, contribute to the general goals and objectives in the strategic plan; an identi?cation of those key factors external to the agency and beyond its control that could signi?cantly affect the achievement of the general goals and objectives; and a description of the program evaluations used in estab? lishing or revising general goals and objectives, with a schedule for future program evaluations to be conducted. ?(bl The strategic plan shall cover a period of not less than 4 years Following the fiscal year in which the plan is submitted. As needed, the head of the agency may make adjustments to the strategic plan to reflect signi?cant changes in the environment in which the agency is operating, with appropriate notification of Congress. ?(cl The performance plan required by section 1115(b) of title 31 shall be consistent with the agency's strategic plan. A perform? ance plan may not be submitted for a ?scal year not covered by a current strategic plan under this section. When developing or making adjustments to a strategic Consultation. plan, the agency shall consult periodically with the Congress, including majority and minority views from the appropriate author? izing, appropriations, and oversight committees, and shall solicit and consider the views and suggestions of those entities potentially affected by or interested in such a plan. The agency shall consult with the appropriate committees of Congress at least once every 2 years. The functions and activities of this section shall be consid? ered to be inherently governmental functions. The drafting of stra? tegic plans under this section shall be performed only by Federal employees. For purposes of this section the term ?agency? means an De?nition. Executive agency de?ned under section 105, but does not include the Central Intelligence Agency, the Government Accountability Of?ce, the United States Postal Service, and the Postal Regulatory Commission?. SEC. 3. PERFORMANCE PLANNING ALIENDMENTS. Chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking section 1115 and inserting the following: 124 STAT. 3868 Coordination. Web posting. Dead] i no. Public in formation. Web posting. Noti ?cation. PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 1115. Federal Government and agency performance plans FEDERAL GUVERNMENT PERFORMANCE Ptansi?In carrying out the provisions of section 1105(alf28), the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget shall coordinate with agencies to develop the Federal Government performance plan. In addition to the submission of such plan with each budget of the United States Government, the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget shall ensure that all information required by this subsection is concurrently made available on the website provided under sec? tion 1122 and updated periodically, but no less than annually. The Federal Government performance plan shall? ?fll establish Federal Government performance goals to define the level of performance to be achieved during the year in which the plan is submitted and the next ?scal year for each of the Federal Government priority goals required under section llZUia} of this title; identify the agencies, organizations, program activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities contributing to each Federal Government performance goal during the current ?scal year; for each Federal Government performance goal, iden- tify a lead Government of?cial who shall be responsible for coordinating the efforts to achieve the goal; establish common Federal Government performance indicators with quarterly targets to be used in measuring or assessing? ?fAl overall progress toward each Federal Government performance goal; and the individual contribution of each agency, organization, program activity, regulation, tax expenditure, policy, and other activity identi?ed under paragraph establish clearly de?ned quarterly milestones; and identify major management challenges that are Governmentwide or crosscutting in nature and describe plans to address such challenges, including relevant performance goals, performance indicators, and milestones, ?(bl AGENCY PERFORMANCE Puma?Not later than the first Monday in February of each year, the head of each agency shall make available on a public website of the agency, and notify the President and the Congress of its availability, a performance plan covering each program activity set forth in the budget of such agency. Such plan shall? ?i 1) establish performance goals to define the level of performance to be achieved during the year in which the plan is submitted and the next fiscal year; express such goals in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable form unless authorized to be in an alternative form under subsection describe how the performance goals contribute to? ?(Al the general goals and objectives established in the agency?s strategic plan required by section 306talf2) of title 5; and any of the Federal Government performance goals established in the Federal Government performance plan required by subsection (alt PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 124 STAT. 3869 identify among the performance goals those which. are designated as agency priority goals as required by section 1120(b) of this title, if applicable; provide a description of how the performance goals are to be achieved, including? ?(Al the operation processes, training, skills and tech- nology, and the human, capital, information, and other resources and strategies required to meet those perform- ance goals; clearly de?ned milestones; ?(Cl an identi?cation of the organizations, program activities, regulations, policies, and other activities that contribute to each performance goal, both within, and external to the agency; a description of how the agency is working with other agencies to achieve its performance goals as well as relevant Federal Government performance goals; and ?(El an, identi?cation of the agency of?cials responsible for the achievement of each performance goal, who shall be known as goal leaders; establish a balanced set of performance indicators to be used in measuring or assessing progress toward each performance goal, including, as appropriate, customer service, ef?ciency, output, and outcome indicators; provide a basis for comparing actual program results with the established performance goals; a description of how the agency will ensure the accuracy and reliability of the data used to measure progress towards its performance goals, including an identi?cation of? ?(Al the means to be used to verify and validate meas? ured values; ?(Bl the sources for the data; the level of accuracy required for the intended use of the data; D) any limitations to the data at the required level of accuracy; and how the agency will compensate for such limita? tions if needed to reach the required level of accuracy; describe major management challenges the agency faces and identify? ?(Al planned actions to address such challenges; ?(Bl performance goals, performance indicators, and milestones to measure progress toward resolving such chal? lenges; and the agency of?cial responsible for resolving such challenges; and identify low?priority program activities based on an analysis of their contribution to the mission and goals of the agency and include an evidence?based justification for desig? nating a program activity as low priority. an agency, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, determines that it is not feasible to express the performance goals for a par? ticular program activity in an objective, quanti?able, and measur? able form, the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget may authorize an alternative form. Such alternative form shall? include separate descriptive statements of? 124 STAT. 3870 PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 ?{Alii) a minimally effective program; and a successful program; or such alternative as authorized by the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget, with sufficient precision and in such terms that would allow for an accurate, independent determination of whether the pro? gram activity?s performance meets the criteria of the description; or state why it is infeasible or impractical to express a performance goal in any form for the program activity. ?(dl TREATMENT OF PROGRAM Acriviriss.?For the purpose of complying with this section, an agency may aggregate, disaggregate, or consolidate program activities, except that any aggregation or consolidation may not omit or minimize the signi?cance of any program activity constituting a major function or operation for the agency. ?(e21 agency may submit with an annual plan an appendix covering any portion of the plan at? is speci?cally authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy; and is properly classi?ed pursuant to such Executive order. ?(fl INHsusNi?Lv functions and activities of this section shall be considered to be inherently governmental functions. The drafting of performance plans under this section shall be performed only by Federal employees. ?(gl Caner HUMAN CAPITAL respect to each agency with a Chief Human Capital Of?cer, the Chief Human Capital Of?cer shall prepare that portion of the annual performance plan described under subsection ?(hi purposes of this section and sections 1116 through 1125, and sections 9703 and 9704, the term? ?fll ?agency? has the same meaning as such term is de?ned under section 308(f} of title 5; ?crosscutting? means across organizational (such as agency) boundaries; ?customer service measure? means an assessment of service delivery to a customer, client, citizen, or other recipient, which can include an assessment of quality, timeliness, and satisfaction among other factors; ?[41 ?ef?ciency measure? means a ratio of a program activity?s inputs (such as costs or hours worked by employees) to its outputs (amount of products or services delivered) or outcomes (the desired results ofa program}; ?major management challenge? means programs or management functions, within or across agencies, that have greater vulnerability to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanage? ment (such as issues identi?ed by the Government Account? ability Of?ce as high risk or issues identi?ed by an Inspector General} where a failure to perform well could seriously affect the ability of an agency or the Government to achieve its mission or goals; ?milestone? means a scheduled event signifying the completion of a major deliverable or a set of related deliverables or a phase ofwork; PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 124 STAT. 3871 ?outcome measure? means an assessment of the results of a program activity compared to its intended purpose; ?output measure? means the tabulation, calculation, or recording of activity or effort that can be expressed in a quantitative or qualitative manner; ?performance goal? means a target level of performance expressed as a tangible, measurable objective, against which actual achievement can be compared, including a goal expressed as a quantitative standard, value, or rate; ?performance indicator? means a particular value or characteristic used to measure output or outcome; ?program activity? means a speci?c activity or project as listed in the program and ?nancing schedules of the annual budget of the United States Government; and ?program evaluation? means an assessment, through objective measurement and systematic analysis, of the manner and extent to which Federal programs achieve intended objec- tives.". SEC. 4. REPORTING Chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking section 1116 and inserting the Following: 1116. Agency performance reporting ?on The head of each agency shall make available on a public Public website of the agency and to the Of?ce of Management and Budget illf?rm?tiP?r an update on agency performance. ?Eb pOStmg' ?(be1} Each update shall compare actual performance achieved Deadline. with the performance goals established in the agency performance plan under section 1115(b) and shall occur no less than 150 days after the end of each fiscal year, with more frequent updates of actual performance on indicators that provide data of signi?cant value to the Government, Congress, or program partners at a reasonable level of administrative burden. If performance goals are speci?ed in an alternative form under section the results shall he described in relation to such specifications, including whether the performance failed to meet the criteria of a minimally effective or successful program. ?(cl Each update shall? ?(11 review the success of achieving the performance goals and include actual results for the 5 preceding fiscal years; evaluate the performance plan for the current fiscal year relative to the performance achieved toward the perform? ance goals during the period covered by the update; explain and describe where a performance goal has not been met {including when a program activity?s performance is determined not to have met the criteria of a successful program activity under section 1115(ciil)(A)(ii) or a cor- responding level of achievement if another alternative form is used}? why the goal was not met; ?(Bl those plans and schedules for achieving the estab? lished performance goal; and ?(Cl if the performance goal is impractical or infeasible, why that is the case and what action is recommended; 124 STAT. 3872 Classi?ed in formation. Deadline. Determination. Designation. Submission. PUBLIC LAW 4; 2011 describe the use and assess the effectiveness in achieving performance goals of any waiver under section 9703 of this title; include a review of the performance goals and evalua- tion of the performance plan relative to the agency?s strategic human capital management; describe how the agency ensures the accuracy and reliability of the data used to measure progress towards its performance goals, including an identi?cation of? ?{Al the means used to verify and validate measured values; the sources for the data; the level of accuracy required for the intended use of the data; any limitations to the data at the required level of accuracy; and ?(El how the agency has compensated for such limita? tions if needed to reach the required level of accuracy; and include the summary ?ndings of those program evalua- tions completed during the period covered by the update. ?(dl If an agency performance update includes any program activity or information that is specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and is properly classi?ed pursu? ant to such Executive Order, the head of the agency shall make such information available in the classified appendix provided under section 1115(e). ?(e21 The functions and activities of this section shall be consid? ered to be inherently governmental functions. The drafting of agency performance updates under this section shall be performed only by Federal employees. ?(fl Each ?scal year, the Of?ce of Management and Budget shall determine whether the agency programs or activities meet performance goals and objectives outlined in the agency perform- ance plans and submit a report on unmet goals to? ?(11 the head ofthe agency; the Committee on Homeland Security and Govern? mental Affairs of the Senate; the Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform of the House of Representatives; and the Government Accountability Of?ce. If an agency?s programs or activities have not met perform- ance goals as determined by the Office of Management and Budget for 1 ?scal year, the head of the agency shall submit a performance improvement plan to the Office of Management and Budget to increase program effectiveness for each unmet goal with measurable milestones. The agency shall designate a senior of?cial who shall oversee the performance improvement strategies for each unmet goal. ?(hlfD If the Of?ce of Management and Budget determines that agency programs or activities have unmet performance goals for 2 consecutive fiscal years, the head of the agency shall? ?fAl submit to Congress a description of the actions the Administration will take to improve performance, including proposed statutory changes or planned executive actions; and PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 124 STAT. 3873 ?(Bl describe any additional funding the agency will obli? gate to achieve the goal, if such an action is determined appro- priate in consultation with the Director of the Of?ce of Manage- ment and Budget, for an amount determined appropriate by the Director. In providing additional funding described under paragraph the head of the agency shall use any reprogramming or transfer authority available to the agency. If after exercising such Request. authority additional funding is necessary to achieve the level deter- mined appropriate by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of the agency shall submit a request to Congress for additional reprogramming or transfer authority, If an agency?s programs or activities have not met perform? Recommenda- ance goals as determined by the Of?ce of Management and Budget tl?n?g for 3 consecutive ?scal years, the Director of the Of?ce of Manage- Deadlme' ment and Budget shall submit recommendations to Congress on actions to improve performance not later than 60 days after that determination, including? reauthorization proposals for each program or activity that has not met performance goals; proposed statutory changes necessary for the program activities to achieve the proposed level of performance on each performance goal; and planned executive actions or identi?cation of the pro? gram for termination or reduction in the President?s budget?. SEC. 5. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND AGENCY PRIORITY GOALS. Chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1119 the following: ?ii 1120. Federal Government and agency priority goals FEDERAL Psiosirv The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall coordinate with agencies to develop priority goals to improve the performance and management of the Federal Government. Such Federal Government priority goals shall include? outcome-oriented goals covering a limited number of crosscutting policy areas; and goals for management improvements needed across the Federal Government, including? ?nancial management; human capital management; information technology management; d?(iv} procurement and acquisition management; an ?(vi real property management; The Federal Government priority goals shall be long? term in nature. At a minimum, the Federal Government priority Deadline. goals shall be updated or revised every 4 years and made Public publicly available concurrently with the submission of the budget of the United States Government made in the ?rst full ?scal year following any year in which the term of the President commences under section 101 of title 3. As needed, the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget may make adjustments to the Federal Government priority goals to re?ect signi?cant changes in the environment in which the 124 STAT. 3874 Consultation. Con saltation. Deadline. rle?lieb posting. Deadline. Determination. Time period. Classi?ed information. PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 Federal Government is operating, with appropriate notification. of Congress. When developing or making adjustments to Federal Government priority goals, the Director of the Of?ce of Manage- ment and Budget shall consult periodically with the Congress, including obtaining majo?ty and minority views from? ?iAl the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives; ?(Bl the Committees on the Budget of the Senate and the House of Representatives; ?(Cl the Committee on Homeland Security and Govern? mental Affairs of the Senate; the Committee on, Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives; ?(El the Committee on Finance of the Senate; ?(Fl the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives; and ?{Gl any other committees as determined appropriate; The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall consult with the appropriate committees of Congress at least once every 2 years. The Director of the of Management and Budget shall make information about the Federal Government priority goals available on the website described under section 1122 ofthis title. ?(til The Federal Government performance plan required under section 1115(al of this title shall be consistent with the Federal Government priority goals. ?(bl AGENCY PRIORITY Gems.? Every 2 years, the head of each agency listed in section. 901(bl of this title, or as otherwise determined by the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget, shall identify agency priority goals from among the performance goals of the agency. The Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget shall determine the total number of agency priority goals across the Government, and the number to be developed by each. agency. The agency priority goals shall? ?(Al re?ect the highest priorities of the agency, as determined by the head of the agency and informed by the Federal Government priority goals provided under sub- section fal and the consultations with Congress and other interested parties required by section 306(dl of title 5; ?{Bl have ambitious targets that can be achieved within a 2-year period; ?(Cl have a clearly identified agency official, known as a goal leader, who is responsible for the achievement of each agency priority goal; have interim. quarterly targets for performance indicators if more frequent updates of actual performance provides data of signi?cant value to the Government, Con- gress, or program partners at a reasonable level of adminis- trative burden; and ?(El have clearly defined quarterly milestones. If an, agency priority goal includes any program activity or information that is speci?cally authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and is properly PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 124 STAT. 3875 classi?ed pursuant to such Executive order, the head of the agency shall make such information available in the classi?ed appendix provided under section 1115(e). The functions and activities of this section shall be consid- ered to be inherently governmental. Functions. The development of Federal Government and agency priority goals shall be performed only by Federal employees?. SEC. 6. QUARTERLY PRIORITY PROGRESS REVIEWS AND USE OF PERFORMANCE INFORMATION. Chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1120 [as added by section 5 of this Act) the following: ??1121. Quarterly priority progress reviews and use of performance information Use or PERFORMANCE INFORMATION To Fanaam. Pmomrv Crests?Not less than quarterly, the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget, with the support of the Performance Improvement Council, shall? for each Federal Government priority goal required by section 1120(3.) of this title, review with the appropriate lead Government of?cial the progress achieved during the most recent quarter, overall trend data, and the likelihood of meeting the planned level of performance; include in such reviews of?cials from the agencies, organizations, and program activities that contribute to the accomplishment of each Federal Government priority goal; assess whether agencies, organizations, program activi- Assessment. ties, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities are contributing as planned to each Federal Government pri- ority goal; categorize the Federal Government priority goals by risk of not achieving the planned level of performance; and for the Federal Government priority goals at greatest risk of not meeting the planned level of performance, identify prospects and strategies for performance improvement, including any needed changes to agencies, organizations, pro- gram activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies or other activities. ?(bl Aomvcv Use or PERFORMANCE INFORMATION To Acmst less than. quarterly, at each agency required to develop agency priority goals required by section 1120(b} of this title, the head of the agency and Chief Operating Of?cer, the support of the agency Performance Improvement Of?cer, 5 a for each agency priority goal, review with the appro? priate goal leader the progress achieved during the most recent quarter, overall trend data, and the likelihood of meeting the planned level ofperformance; coordinate with relevant personnel within and outside the agency who contribute to the accomplishment of each agency priority goal; assess whether relevant organizations, program activi- assessment. ties, regulations, policies, and other activities are contributing as planned to the agency priority goals; 124 STAT. 3876 Deadline. PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 categorize agency priority goals by risk of not achieving the planned level of performance; and for agency priority goals at greatest risk of not meeting the planned level of performance, identify prospects and strate- gies for performance improvement, including any needed changes to agency program activities, regulations, policies, or other activities?. SEC. 7. TRANSPARENCY 0F FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS, PRI- ORITY GOALS, AND RESULTS. Chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1121 (as added by section 6 of this Act) the following: 1122. Transparency of programs, priority goals, and results TRANSPARENCY OF AGENCY IN later than October 1, 2012, the Of?ce of Management and Budget shall? ?{Al ensure the effective operation of a single website; ?(Bl at a minimum, update the website on a quarterly basis; and include on the website information about each program identi?ed by the agencies. for each program described under paragraph (1) shall include? ?(Al an identi?cation of how the agency de?nes the term ?program?, consistent with guidance provided by the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget, including the program activities that are aggregated, disaggregated, or consolidated to be considered a program by the agency; ?(Bl a description of the purposes of the program and the contribution of the program to the mission and goals of the agency; and ?(Cl an identification of funding for the current ?scal year and previous 2 ?scal years. ?(bl Taausmasncv or AGENCY Paroarrv GOALS AND Brianna?The head of each agency required to develop agency priority goals shall make information about each agency priority goal available to the Of?ce of Management and Budget for publica- tion on the website, with the exception of any information covered by section 1120(bl'l2l of this title. In addition to an identi?cation of each agency priority goal, the website shall also consolidate information about each agency priority goal, including? ?[12h a description of how the agency incorporated any views and suggestions obtained through congressional consultations about the agency priority goal; an identi?cation of key factors external to the agency and beyond its control that could signi?cantly affect the achievement of the agency priority goal; a description of how each agency priority goal will be achieved, including? the strategies and resources required to meet the priority goal; clearly defined milestones; the organizations, program activities, regulations, policies, and other activities that contribute to each goal, both within and external to the agency; PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 124 STAT. 3877 how the agency is working with other agencies to achieve the goal; and an identi?cation of the agency official responsible for achieving the priority goal; the performance indicators to be used in measuring or assessing progress; a description of how the agency ensures the accuracy and reliability of the data used to measure progress towards the priority goal, including an identi?cation of? the means used to verify and validate measured values; the sources for the data; the level of accuracy required for the intended use of the data; any limitations to the data at the required level of accuracy; and ?(Hi how the agency has compensated for such limita? tions if needed to reach the required level of accuracy; the results achieved during the most recent quarter and overall trend data compared to the planned level of performance; an assessment of whether relevant organizations, pro? gram activities, regulations, policies, and other activities are contributing as planned; an identi?cation of the agency priority goals at risk of not achieving the planned level of performance; and any prospects or strategies for performance improve- ment. ?(ci TRANSPARENCY or FEDERAL Patoarrv GOALS AND Director of the Office of Management and Web posting. Budget shall also make available on the website? a brief description of each of the Federal Government priority goals recluired by section 1120(a) of this title; a description of how the Federal Government priority goals incorporate views and suggestions obtained through congressional consultations; the Federal Government performance goals and performance indicators associated with each Federal Govern? ment priority goal as required by section of this title; an identification of the lead Government official for each Federal Government performance goal; the results achieved during the most recent quarter and overall trend data compared to the planned level of performance; an identification of the agencies, organizations, pro? gram activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities that contribute to each Federal Government priority goal; an assessment of whether relevant agencies, organiza? Assessment. tions, program activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities are contributing as planned; an identi?cation of the Federal Government priority go?zlls at risk of not achieving the planned level of performance; an any prospects or strategies for performance improve- ment. 124 STAT. 3878 Public information. Guidance. PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 INFORMATION on ?Janene?The information made avail- able on the website under this section shall be readily accessible and easily found on the Internet by the public and members and committees of Congress. Such information shall also be presented in a searchable, machine?readable format. The Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget shall issue guidance to ensure that such information is provided in a way that presents a coherent picture of all Federal programs, and the performance of the Federal Government as well as individual agencies?. SEC. 3. AGENCY CHIEF OPERATING OFFICERS. Chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1122 (as added by section 7 of this Act) the following: 1123. Chief Operating Officers ?(a1 each agency, the deputy head of agency, or equivalent, shall be the Chief Operating Officer of the a enc . ?(Iii Chief Operating Of?cer shall be respon- sible for improving the management and performance of the agency, and shall? ?[11 provide overall organization management to improve agency performance and achieve the mission and goals of the agency through the use of strategic and performance planning, measurement, analysis, regular assessment of progress, and use of performance information to improve the results achieved; advise and assist the head of agency in carrying out the requirements of sections 1115 through 1122 of this title and section 306 of title 5; oversee agency?speci?c efforts to improve management functions within the agency and across Government; and coordinate and collaborate with relevant personnel within and external to the agency who have a significant role in contributing to and achieving the mission and goals of the agency, such as the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Human Cap? ital Officer, Chief Acquisition Officen?Senior Procurement Executive, Chief Information Of?cer, and other line of business chiefs at the agency?. SEC. 9. AGENCY IMPROVEMENT OFFICERS AND THE IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL. Chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1123 (as added by section 8 of this Act] the following: 1124. Performance Improvement Officers and the Perfomn- ance Improvement Council PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT ?(11 each agency, the head of the agency, in consultation with the agency Chief Operating Of?cer, shall designate a senior executive of the agency as the agency Performance Improvement Officer. Performance Improvement Officer shall report directly to the Chief Operating Of?cer. Subject to the direction of the Chief Operating Of?cer, each Perform- ance Improvement Officer shall? PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 124 STAT. 3879 advise and assist the head of the agency and the Chief Operating Officer to ensure that the mission and goals of the agency are achieved through strategic and performance planning, measurement, analysis, regular assessment of progress, and use of performance information to improve the results achieved; advise the head of the agency and the Chief Oper? ating Of?cer on the selection of agency goals, including opportunities to collaborate with other agencies on common goals; ?(Cl assist the head of the agency and the Chief Oper? ating Of?cer in overseeing the implementation. of the agency strategic planning, performance planning, and reporting requirements provided under sections 1115 through 1122 of this title and sections 306 of title 5, including the contributions of the agency to the Federal Government priority goals; support the head of agency and the Chief Oper? ating Of?cer in the conduct of regular reviews of agency performance, including at least quarterly reviews of progress achieved toward agency priority goals, if applicable; ?(El assist the head of the agency and the Chief Oper? ating Of?cer in the development and use within the agency of performance measures in personnel performance appraisals, and, as appropriate, other agency personnel and planning processes and assessments; and ensure that agency progress toward the achieve- Public ment of all goals is communicated to leaders, managers, i?LfUrmal-ifm- and employees in the agency and Congress, and made available on a public website of the agency. PERFORMANCE is established a Performance Improvement Council, consisting of? ?fAl the Deputy Director for Management of the Of?ce of Management and Budget, who shall act as chairperson of the Council; the Performance Improvement Of?cer from each agency de?ned in section 901th} of this title; other Performance Improvement Of?cers as deter- mined appropriate by the chairperson; and other individuals as determined appropriate by the chairperson. Performance Improvement Council shall? be convened by the chairperson or the designee of the chairperson, who shall preside at the meetings of the Performance Improvement Council, determine its agenda, direct its work, and establish and direct subgroups of the Performance Improvement Council, as appropriate, to deal with particular subject matters; assist the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget to improve the performance of the Federal Gmiernment and achieve the Federal Government priority oa s; assist the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget in implementing the planning, reporting, and 124 STAT. 3880 31 LISC 1115 note. PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 use of performance information requirements related to the Federal Government priority goals provided under sec- tions 1115, 1120, 1121, and 1122 ofthis title; work to resolve speci?c Governmentwide or cross- cutting performance issues, as necessary; Facilitate the exchange among agencies of practices that have led to performance improvements within specific programs, agencies, or across agencies; ?(Fl coordinate with other interagency management councils; seek advice and information as appropriate from nonmemher agencies, particularly smaller agencies; consider the performance improvement experi? ences of corporations, nonprofit organizations, foreign, State, and local governments, Government employees, public sector unions, and customers of Government serv- ices; receive such assistance, information and advice from agencies as the Council may request, which agencies shall provide to the extent permitted by law; and develop and submit to the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget, or when appropriate to the President through the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, at times and in such formats as the chair? person may specify, recommendations to streamline and improve performance management policies and require- ments. ?fAl IN Administrator of General Serv? ices shall provide administrative and other support for the Council to implement this section. ?(Bl heads of agencies with Perform- ance Improvement Of?cers serving on the Council shall, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, provide at the request of the chairperson of the Performance Improvement Council up to 2 personnel authorizations to serve at the direction of the chairperson?, SEC. 10. FOWT OF PERFORMANCE PLANS AND REPORTS. SEARCHABLE, MACHINE-READABLE PLANS AND Rappers.? For ?scal year 2012 and each fiscal year thereafter, each agency required to produce strategic plans, performance plans, and performance updates in accordance with the amendments made by this Act shall? Web posting. Guidance. not incur expenses for the printing of strategic plans, performance plans, and performance reports for release external to the agency, except when providing such documents to the Congress; produce such plans and reports in searchable, machine? readable formats; and make such plans and reports available on the website described under section 1122 of title 31, United States Code. [bl WEB-BASED PERFORMANCE PLANNING AND REPORTING. IN later than June 1, 2012, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall issue guidance to agencies to provide concise and timely performance informa- tion for publication on the website described under section PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 124 STAT. 3881 1122 of title 31, United States Code, including, at a minimum, all requirements of sections 1115 and 1116 of title 31, United States Code, except for section 1115(eJ, HIGH-PRIORITY agencies required to develop agency priority goals under section 1120(1)} of title 31, United States Code, the performance information required under this section shall be merged with the existing information required under section 1122 of title 31, United States Code. (3) developing guidance under this subsection, the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget shall take into consideration the experiences of agencies in making consolidated performance planning and reporting information available on the website as required under section 1122 of title 31, United States Code. SEC. 11. REDUCING DUPLICATIVE AND UUTDATED AGENCY REPORTING. BUDGET 1105(a} of title 31, United States Code, is amended? (1) by redesignating second paragraph (33} as paragraph and by adding at the end the Following: the list of plans and reports, as provided for under section 1125, that agencies identi?ed for elimination or consoli? dation because the plans and reports are determined outdated or duplicative of other required plans and reports?. ELIMINATION OF UNNECESSARY AGENCY Chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is further amended by adding after section 1124 (as added by section 9 of this Act} the following: 1125. Elimination of unnecessary agency reporting ?(al AGENCY IDENTIFJCATJON or Unnecessasr Annually, based on guidance provided by the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget, the Chief Operating Of?cer at each agency shall? ?[12h compile a list that identi?es all plans and reports the agency produces for Congress, in accordance with statutory requirements or as directed in congressional reports; analyze the list compiled under paragraph identify which plans and reports are outdated or duplicative of other required plans and reports, and refine the list to include only the plans and reports identi?ed to be outdated or duplicative; consult with the congressional committees that receive the plans and reports identi?ed under paragraph to deter? mine whether those plans and reports are no longer useful to the committees and could be eliminated or consolidated with other plans and reports; and provide a total count of plans and reports compiled under paragraph (ll and the list of outdated and duplicative reports identi?ed under paragraph to the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget. ?(bl PLANS AND ?11) FIRST YEAJ?i.?During the ?rst year of implementation of this section, the list of plans and reports identi?ed by each agency as outdated or duplicative shall be not less than 10 124 STAT. 3882 Determination. Deadlines. 5 USC 5105 note. PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 of all plans and reports identi?ed under subsection 1 . SUBSEQUENT each year following the ?rst year described under paragraph (1), the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall determine the minimum per? cent of plans and reports to be identi?ed as outdated or duplica? tive on each list of plans and reports. ?(cl REQUEST Foe ELIMINATION or Unnecessaav In addition to including the list of plans and reports determined to be outdated or duplicative by each agency in the budget of the United States Government, as provided by section 1105(alf37}, the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget may concur? rently submit to Congress legislation to eliminate or consolidate such plans and reports?. SEC. 12. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SKILLS AND CUMPETENCIES. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SKILLS AND Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Of?ce of Personnel Management, in consultation with the Performance Improvement Council, shall identify the key skills and competencies needed by Federal Government personnel for developing goals, evaluating programs, and analysing and using performance information for the purpose of improving Government ef?ciency and effectiveness. PosIrIoN later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, based on the identi?cations under subsection the Director of the Of?ce of Personnel Manage- ment shall incorporate, as appropriate, such key skills and com- petencies into relevant position classifications. (cl INCORPORATION EXISTING AGENCY later than 2 years after the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall work with each agency, as de?ned under section 306?) of title 5, United States Code, to incorporate the key skills identified under subsection {all into training for relevant employees at each agency. SEC. 13. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. The table of contents for chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 306 and inserting the following: Agency strategic plans?. The table of contents for chapter 11 of title 31, United States lCode, is amended by striking the items relating to section 1115 and 1116 and inserting the following: ?1115. Federal Government and agency performance plans. "1116. Agency performance reporting". to} The table of contents for chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ?1120. Federal Government and agency priority goals. "1121. Quarterly priority progress reviews and use of performance information. "1122. Transparency of programs, priority goals, and results. "1123. Chief Operating Officers. "1124. Perforrlnance Improvement Of?cers and the Performance Improvement lCoun? cl . ?1125.. Elimination of unnecessary agency, reporting". PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 124 STAT. 3883 SEC. 14. IMPIEMENTATIDN OF THIS ACT. 31 SC 1115 INTERIM PLANNING AND REPORTING. mte' IN Director of the Of?ce of Management Coordination. and Budget shall coordinate with agencies to develop interim Federal Government priority goals and submit interim Federal Government performance plans consistent with the require? ments of this Act beginning with the submission of the ?scal year 2013 Budget of the United States Government. agency shall (A) not later than February 6, 2012, make adjustments to its strategic plan to make the plan consistent with the requirements of this Act; (B) prepare and submit performance plans censistent Plan. with the requirements of' this Act, including the identifica? tion of agency priority goals, beginning with the perform- ance plan for ?scal year 2013; and [Cl make performance reporting updates consistent with the requirements of this Act beginning in ?scal year 2012. QUARTERLY REviEws.?The quarterly priority progress reviews required under this Act shall begin? (Al with the first full quarter beginning on or after the date of enactment of this Act for agencies based on the agency priority goals contained in the Analytical Perspectives volume of the Fiscal Year 2011 Budget of the United States Government; and (B) with the quarter ending June 30, 2012 for the interim Federal Government priority goals. Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget shall prepare guidance for agencies in carrying out the interim planning and reporting activities required under subsection in addition to other guidance as recluired for implementation of this Act. SEC. 15. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AN LEGISLATION. 31 USC 1115 IN in this Act shall be construed as now limiting the ability of Congress to establish, amend, suspend, or annul a goal of the Federal Government or an agency. GAO (11 INTERIM PLANNING AND REPORTING later than June 30, 2013, the Comptroller General shall submit a report to Congress that includes? (A) an evaluation of' the implementation of the interim planning and reporting activities conducted under section 14 of this Act; and any recommendations for improving implementa- tion of this Act as determined appropriate. IMPLEMENTATION (A) IN Comptroller General shall evaluate the implementation of this Act subsequent to the interim planning and reporting activities evaluated in the report submitted to Congress under paragraph Ell. (Bl AGENCY Comptroller General shall evaluate how implementation of this Act is affecting performance management at the agencies described in section 901(1)) of title 31, United States Code, Deadline. 124 STAT. 3884 PUBLIC LAW 4, 2011 including whether performance management is being used by these agencies to improve the ef?ciency and effectiveness of agency programs. Comptroller General shall submit to Congress? (I) an initial report on the evaluation under clause not later than September 30, 2015; and a subsequent report on the evaluation under clause not later than September 30, 2017. (Cl FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING AND REPORTING Comptroller General shall evaluate the implementation of the Federal Govern- ment priority goals, Federal Government performance plans and related reporting required by this Act. Comptroller General shall submit to Congress? (I) an initial report on the evaluation under clause not later than September 30, 2015; and (II) subsequent reports on the evaluation under clause not later than September 30, 2017 and every 4 years thereafter. (D) Comptroller General shall include in the reports required by subparagraphs (B) and any recommendations for improving implementation of this Act and for streamlining the plan- ning and reporting requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Approved January 4, 2011. LEGISLATIVE 2142: HOUSE REPORTS: No. 111?504 (Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform}. SENATE REPORTS: No. 111?372 [Coma]. on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs}. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Vol. 156 (2010}: June 16, considered and passed House. Dec. 16, considered and passed Senate, amended. Dec. 1'7, House failed to concur in Senate amendment. Dec. 21, House concurred in Senate amendment. - I Document Number 24 Department of Energy Strategic Plan Update In May 2011, the Department of Energy (DOE) released its new Strategic Plan, a document that outlines the broad, cross-cutting and collaborative goals that stretch across our complex. It is intended to serve as a blueprint for the Department of Energy to help address the nation?s energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. The plan articulates how the Department?s missions and programs are designed to bring the best minds and capabilities to bear on important problems. DOE draws on the diverse talents of our federal workforce, scientists and engineers from national laboratories, academia, and the private sector in multidisciplinary teams, striving to find solutions to the most complex and pressing challenges. The Strategic Plan is organized into four distinct goals: 1. Catalyze the timely, material and efficient transformation of the nation?s energy system and securing U.S. leadership in clean energy technologies, 2. Maintain a vibrant U.S. effort in science and engineering as a cornerstone of our economic prosperity with clear leadership in strategic areas, 3. Enhance nuclear security through defense, nonproliferation, and environmental efforts, Establish an operational and adaptable framework that combines the best wisdom of all Department stakeholders to maximize mission success. While the goals and principles of the Strategic Plan remain our guideposts, in accordance with the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010, the Department has prepared an addendum to its Strategic Plan that recognizes the new Agency Priority Goals and updates the status on several targeted outcomes within the plan. Since September 2011, DOE has been working closely with the Office of Management and Budget to propose, discuss, and refine its selection of Agency Priority Goals for Fiscal Year 2012- 2013. As a result, the Department has finalized and assigned leadership responsibility to eight priority goals. Four of these goals are updates to the Fiscal Year 2010?2011 High Priority Performance Goals and four are new goals. Attachment 1 provides the new Priority Goals as they fit in the Strategic Plan. Attachment 2 provides updates to the 16 targeted outcomes in the Strategic Plan designated for 2011 and 2012, including whether the target will be retired or extended in FY 2013. Note that retirement of a targeted outcome does not mean that related activities will not continue. Attachment 1: Priority Goal Updates to the Strategic Plan Strategic Goal New Priority Goal Statements Goal 1: Transform Our Energy Systems: Catalyze the timely, material, and efficient transformation of the nation's energy system and secure US. leadership in clean energy technologies Save low income families money and energy through weatherization retrofits. From FY2010 through FY2013, in collaboration with HUD, enable the cost-effective energy retrofits of a total of 1.2 million housing units, ofwhich more than 75% are low income. (updated target) Reduce consumer energy use and costs for household appliances. By December 31, 2013, issue at least 9 new energy conservation standards to deliver net consumer savings of hundreds of billions of dollars over 30 years and require efficient products across domestic and international manufacturers. {new goal] Reduce the cost of batteries for electric drive vehicles to help increase the market for Plug-In Hybrids and All Electric Vehicles and thereby reduce petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions. By October 2013, demonstrate a prototype Plug-In Hybrid battery technology that is capable of achieving a cost of S400g?kWhr {useable energy] during high volume manufacturing {100,000 packs per year} compared to a 2008 baseline of [new goal; replaces the former battery manufacturing High Priority Performance Goal] Make solar energy as cheap as traditional sources of electricity. By the end of the decade, drive the cost of solar electricity down to: SUW at utility scale; $1.25fW at commercial scale; and at residential scale. By Dec. 2013, demonstrate a prototype thin film or film silicon module with an efficiency of greater than 21% and a balance-of-system with a 50% reduction ofthe permitting and installation costs to (new goal; replaces the former High Priority Performance Goal to double renewable energy generation] Goal 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise: Maintain a vibrant U.S. effort in science and engineering as a cornerstone of our economic prosperity, with clear leadership in strategic areas Prioritization of scientific facilities to ensure optimal benefit from Federal investments. By September 30, 2013, formulate a 10-year prioritization of scientific facilities across the Office of Science based on (1) the ability of the facility to contribute to world-leading science, the readiness of the facility for construction, and an estimated construction and operations cost of the facility. {new goal) Goal 3: Secure Our Nation: Enhance nuclear security through defense, nonproliferation, and environmental efforts Maintain the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and dismantle excess nuclear weapons to meet national nuclear security requirements as assigned by the President through the Nuclear Posture Review. Each year through 2013 and into the future, maintain 100% of warheads in the stockpile that are safe, secure, reliable, and available to the President for deployment. (updated ta rget) Make significant progress toward securing the most vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide within four years. By December 31, 2013, remove or dispose of a cumulative total of 4,353 kg of vulnerable nuclear material [highly enriched uranium and plutonium), and complete material protection, control and accounting upgrades on a cumulative total of 229 buildings containing weapons usable material. (updated target] Reduce the Department's Cold War legacy environmental footprint. By September 30, 2013 achieve a 21% reduction in cold war environmental footprint. (updated target) Attachment 2: Strategic Plan Targeted Outcomes Expiring in 2011 and 2012 Goal. Targeted. Outcomes. expiring in 2011-2012 Strategic Plan Update Page Double renewable energy generation [excluding Target on track and after 2012 will be conventional hydropower and biopoweri by 2012 replaced by program goals for SunShot [High Priority Performance Goal). [Priority Goal] and wind, and other renewables, including: "Reduce unsubsidized market levelized cost of energy for on?shore utility?scale wind energy 14 systems to 2 centskah by 2015, and 9.3 centskah for offshore wind by 2020, to put us on a trajectory towards cost parity with traditional sources of electricity." Complete a comprehensive assessment?by Target on track and will be retired September 2012?of materials degradation issues for light?water reactor plants operating beyond 60 14 years. 503' 1: will catalyze by FY 2012 the development Target on track for completion TranSf?rm of transformative and potentially disruptive our Energ?i' energy technologies; drive the transition of high- impact energy innovations toward market adoption; contribute to the advancement of U.S. 17 leadership and global competitiveness in energy innovation; and build itself as an innovative, highly effective, and sustainable organization. Develop cellulosic ethanol technologies by 2012 Target on track and after 2012 the program that can facilitate mature production costs less will shift HERD efforts from alcohol fuels to than $2.00fgallon. producing drop-in fuels and bio-products. The target is replaced by: "Develop biomass . . 18 to hydrocarbon fuel conversion technologies at a cost by 2015 in support of 2017 target of SSI'gallon for drop?ins such as renewable gasoline, diesel, and jet-fuel" Identify by 2012 the most promising educational Target on track and will be retired opportunities to improve domestic energy literacy. 21 Goal 2: The Exploit the National Ignition Facility by 2012 in a Target on track and will be retired science and credible National Ignition Campaign and establish Engineering an open-science user program. 23 Enterprise Develop and apply advanced modeling and Target met simulation tools in 2011 to accelerate progress on 33 Environmental Management technical challenges Goal 3: secure our Develop novel methods for addressing high-level Target on track and will be retired Natl?n waste that can accelerate progress and reduce 38 costs of this multidecadal program, with a 2012 target date for the first demonstration Goal 4: Management and Operational Excellence Align functional and programmatic reporting and, where necessary, create organizational positions to focus and accelerate decision?making and accountability by 2011 Target on track and extended to 2013 42 Develop governance principles relevant to balancing mission and risk, concurrence, transparency, and dispute resolution by 2011 Target on track and extended to 2013 42 Measure and reduce our average time-to-hire for General Schedule positions and equivalent positions by every human resources office [from initiation date to entry on duty date) from 174 calendar days to an 80?day average that includes a 50-day target to job offer by the end of FY 2012. Target on track and extended to 2013 42 Complete at least 90% of our capital asset projects {achieving Critical Decision 4 project completion within a 3-year rolling timeline) at original scope and within 110% of the cost baseline by 2012 Target on track and extended to 2013 45 Improve and continue to refine Department performance management systems and processes by 2012 so that they clearly link work to mission goals, expected outcomes, and accomplishment measures. Ensure that meaningful distinctions between levels of performance are identified and rewarded appropriately Target on track and extended to 2013 45 Create and deploy a quarterly reporting capability by 2011 for timely and reliable functional institutional cost information from our national laboratories Target met 47 Design and deploy a Department?wide advanced management information environment by 2011, enabled through state?of-the?art reporting and display tools, to provide timely and accurate information supporting in?depth program and project performance analysis and review Target retired 47 Implement a plan by 2012 for incident reporting and response in the Department. Target changes to: "Design 84 Implement Phase I {Consolidated Incident Reportingjand Phase II [Improved Information Sharing] ofJoint Cybersecurity Coordination Center by 2013" 43 Document Number 25 Fiscal Year 2011 - Annual Performance . ?it-i=5 am?Mg; . . .. .. ?Ia?=15. . U.S. DEPARTMENT OF :2 .5: 6. I I CONTENTS Message from the Program Evaluation Performance by Strategic Goal .. FY 2010 Unmet Performance FY 2011 Performance Results Performance Background .. ..4 1 ?.40 MESSAGE FROM THE SECRETARY I am pleased to present the U.S. Department of Energy?s (DOE) Fiscal Year 20H Annaai Performance Report. This report provides key performance information that demonstrates our accountability to ensure America?s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. This report and our Fiscai Year 20! 1 Agency. Financiai Report, released in November 201 l, are produced as an alternative to the Performance and Accountability Report. These reports are available at Energy. gov. The Department of Energy has made remarkable progress during these economically challenging times by laying the foundation for a new clean energy future, advancing groundbreaking science, and reducing the nuclear dangers facing our citizens. In. the process, we have begun to change the way the Department does business so we accomplish our work more ef?ciently and more effectively. The Department of Energy Strategic Plan, released in May 201 1, re?ects this new focus through four strategic goal areas: transform our energy systems through catalyzing the timely, material, and ef?cient transformation. of the nation's energy system. and securing U.S. leadership in clean energy technologies; promote the science and engineering enterprise by maintaining a vibrant U.S. effort in science and engineering as a cornerstone of our economic prosperity, with clear leadership in strategic areas; secare oar nation by enhancing nuclear security through defense, nonproliferation, and environmental efforts; and establish management and operationai exceilence by establishing an operational and adaptable framework that combines the best wisdom of all Department stakeholders to maximize mission. success. The investments DOE has made have laid the foundation for a new clean energy economy creating jobs, reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources, and saving money for American families and businesses. Investments in advanced vehicle manufacturing, renewable energy generation, the weatheriration of low-income homes, smart meter deployment, and carbon. capture and sequestration. have benefited communities across the country, at the same time that they have increased the nation?s economic competitiveness. The Department continues to expand the frontiers of science to spur innovation and position the United States to lead in the global clean. energy economy. The Advanced Research. Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) has established itself as a ground-breaking research agency to support potentially transformative research. DOE has also launched three Energy Innovation Hubs and dozens of Energy Frontier Research Centers to accelerate cutting-edge From a car battery with a SUD-mile range to producing gasoline DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report i from sunlight, we have unleashed bold new research efforts that if successful could fundamentally change the way we use and produce energy. The Department of Energy has strengthened nuclear safety and security at home and abroad, cleaning up nuclear sites in the United States and securing vulnerable nuclear material around the world. The Department also played a central role in the historic Nuclear Security Summit, which brought together 47 world leaders to agree on effective national and international measures to secure nuclear material. DOE contributed to making the world a safer place by helping negotiate the New STA RT Treaty the most signi?cant arms control, agreement in nearly two decades. As we continue our work, the Department will rely on the creativity, talent, and dedication of its employees to discover and deliver solutions to our national challenges. Together, we can position the United States to win the global clean energy technology race creating new jobs and industries and a stronger economic future. Based on our internal evaluations, I can provide reasonable assurance that the performance contained in this report is complete and reliable and accurately describes the results achieved by the Department. As Secretary, I assure you that Department of Energy employees take their work seriously, and I commend them for their contributions. 420 Steven Chu February 2012 DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report 2 INTRODUCTION This year?s Department of Energy Ammo! Performance Report (APR) presents the performance results for ?scal year 20] 1 that have contributed to the achievement of goals identi?ed in the President?s ?scal year 201 1 budget. The performance measures discussed in this report were initially outlined in the Department?s FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request. After final congressional budget negotiations, some performance targets were revised to reflect changes in funding levels in enacted appropriations. This document is one of two integrated reports that ful?ll the annual ?nancial and performance accountability reporting required by the Of?ce ofManagement and Budget?s Circular A-136 {Finamrioi Reporting Requirements) and Circular A-ll {annual budget preparation guidance), the Government Performance and Results Act of 19.93, and the GPRA Modernization Act of 20] 0: .r'lgemgr Financial Report (AFR). contains consolidated and combined ?nancial statements, auditor?s. report, Inspector General?s management challenges, improper payments information, and management discussion and analysis. The management section includes an analysis of the ?nancial statements, management controls and compliance information, as well as a high-level discussion of performance outcomes as related to strategic goals. *3 Annual Performance Report (APR) provides summary and detailed results associated with the Department?s performance goals and associated annual targets that align with the budget activities. Also included are references to supporting documentation and the status of prior-year unmet measures. These reports are accessible through the DOE website: DOE FY 20? Annttoi Performance Report 3 PERFORMANCE BACKGROUND Performance Framework The Department uses a performance framework approach in developing program performance metrics to ensure that the right data are measured and to inform program managers, senior leaders, and stakeholders on the progress being made toward the Department?s strategic goals. This framework consists of a hierarchical relationship from the Department mission to individual performance standards, as follows: I The Mission of the US. Department of Energy is ?To ensare America security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and. naclear challenges fhraaglr transfarrnarive science and technology salarions I To accomplish the mission, the Department focuses on four Strategic Goals: 1. Transform Our Energy Systems; 2.. The Science and Engineering Enterprise; 3. Secure Our Nation; and 4. Management and Operational Excellence I The Department has established seven I?rit?n?ily (lords which represent the top priorities for the agency and the current administration and align with the strategic goals I Each program area within the Department has clearly defined Program (lords that also align with the strategic goals and objectives I Annual program Pel'l't'n'mance [ls-"leasures and associated output and outcome targets support achievement of the program goals I Individual employee and contractor Performance Standards are linked directly to specific performance measures to ensure that individuals are held accountable for achieving results Priority Goals The Department of Energy established seven priority goals in FY 2010 which are intended to focus senior leadership?s attention on top administration and departmental priorities and promote better coordination across agencies on key performance priorities. These goals are measurable commitments to specific results the federal government will deliver for the American people. DOE goals are as follows: DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report 4 I Retrol'ils DOE and HUD will work together to enable the cost-effective energy retro?ts ofa total of 1.1 million housing units by the end of FY 2013 (of this number, DOE programs will contribute to retrofits of an estimated 1 million housing units) I Legacy Waste Reduce the Department?s Cold War legacy environmental footprint by 40% by 20] I Renewable Capt'icity Double renewable energy generation excluding conventional hydropower and biopower') by 2012 I .-\dvancerl Battery I?vlamlt'acturing Assist in the development and deployment of advanced battery manufacturing capacity to support 500,000 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles per year by 2015 I Nuclear Loans Commit (conditionally) to loan guarantees for two nuclear power facilities to add new low?carbon emission capacity of at least 3,800 megawatts during 2010 I Secure Nuclear Materials Make significant progress toward securing the most vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide within 4 years I Nuclear Weapons Maintain the 1.1.8. nuclear weapons stockpile and dismantle excess nuclear weapons to meet national nuclear security requirements as assigned by the President through the Nuclear Posture Review Performance Validation and Veri?cation Validation and veri?cation ofperformance data support the general accuracy and reliability ofperformance information, reduce the risk of inaccurate performance data, and provide a sufficient level of confidence that the information presented is credible. Internal controls are used by the Department to meet these requirements, as follows: I The program of?ces, the national laboratories, and the Department?s contractor work force maintain source data substantiating performance results. The Department internally reviews these performance data and results, while independent auditors evaluate key internal controls related to performance reporting. I Budget Preparation .--\nalysis: Performance targets submitted during each phase ofbudget development are reviewed to ensure that they contribute effectively to the achievement of program goals and are aligned with the Department?s strategic priorities. DOE FY 2011' Annual Performance Report 5 Training: The Department offers training to employees to assist them in formulating quality performance measures that meet internal control standards. h-?Ieasure N?Iarlager System: The Performance Measure Manager (PM M) is a performance-managcment database that aligns the Department's Strategic Plan with program performance goals and targets. Departmental program and staff offices input pertormance measures and results directly into this database on a quarterly and annual basis. Detailed tables are then produced for the ?Performance Results" section. ofthis report. DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report PROGRAM EVALUATION The general purpose of program assessments and reviews are to evaluate each program?s quality and effectiveness, to support program planning and improvement, and to encourage programs to develop directions and manage in ways that reflect the Department's strategic goals. The Department?s current program evaluation structure does not dedicate direct funding for agency-directed evaluation activities. The program offices within the Department determine their own staffing and allocate funding resources to planning and conducting evaluations. They allocate time, funding, and personnel to conduct regular and systematic program. assessment. The program evaluations assess challenges, weaknesses, and progress in achieving program goals. The Department program offices are responsible for planning and implementation of program evaluations. These offices develop key research questions and select the appropriate methodologies for each study. Components of the program are periodically reviewed by independent experts knowledgeable about the program and who have competence in the evaluation process and the results are used for continuing program development. The program assessment process is structured to measure the goals and standards of the program; instruments used are valid and reliable for their intended purpose. Program offices planning and conducting the assessment activities have expertise in. various forms of program evaluations. These include peer and merit reviews, advisory committee reviews, studies by the National Academy ofSciences, and audits by the Government Accountability Office and the Inspector General. The following are examples of current DOE program evaluation efforts (EER E, NNSA, Science, and 16 web sites are accessible under the ?Program Evaluation" section at Office of l-lnergy [Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) The lead federal evaluator in Planning, Budget, and Analysis office and the EERE Chichechnology Officer frequently conduct programs? peer reviews. They also review draft impact evaluation. plans and study reports. Impact evaluation studies are all conducted by independent, third?party professional evaluators, and their evaluation plans and study reports are reviewed by additional external experts. per requirements set by EERE standard operating procedures. Office of Fossil Energy (FE) The FEfNational Energy Technology Lab (NETL) conducts peer review meetings with independent, technical experts to assess ongoing research projects and, where applicable, to make recommendations for improvement. The peer review panel of recognized technical experts provides recommendations on how to improve the performance, management, and overall results for each individual research project. For example, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers assembled a panel of leading government, academic, and industry experts to conduct a review of selected Advanced Gasification research projects supported by NETL- DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report 7 Office of Nuclear Energy The NE headquarters? organizations regularly assess the adequacy and the effectiveness of oversight processes carried out by the DOE Idaho Operations Of?ce (DOE-Idaho). This is accomplished by NE headquarters participation in planned DOE-Idaho oversight activities, DOE-Idaho self-assessments, and independent assessments conducted by NE headquarters? personnel on the adequacy of the scope and conduct ofthe oversight activities performed by DOE-Idaho. NE and DOE-Idaho have a significant number of subject matter experts available to conduct evaluations in. a number of functional areas. Also, contract mechanisms are in place to obtain the services of independent experts when internal resources are inadequate. Policies, plans, and formal management, tracking, and archiving systems are in place to ensure all evaluations conducted by NE and DOE-Idaho are properly documented and available for lessons learned and auditing purposes. NE maintains the Oversight Proficiency Assurance Program to ensure that the NE staff conducting evaluations have the minimum baseline set of knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience necessary to conduct effective oversightr?evaluations. DOE-Idaho evaluators maintain required oversight proficiency through participation in the Federal Technical Capability Program. Office of I?llectricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (DE) The GE Research and Development program conducts periodic peer reviews. The peer reviews provide the principal investigators with an expert, unbiased assessment weaknesses, and specific changes that would improve the project. Office of Science (SC) All SC research projects and facilities undergo regular peer review and merit evaluation based on procedures set down in 10 CFR 605 for the extramural grant program and under a similar process for the laboratory programs and scientific user facilities. All new projects are selected through peer review and merit evaluation. While 10 CFR 605 governs financial assistance, the SC applies the same principles to national laboratory research reviews as well. SC has established for each ofthe six SC programs a Federal Advisory Committee, governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (Public Law 92-463) and all applicable FACA amendments, federal regulations, and executive orders. The committees include experts from universities, national laboratories, and industries and provide valuable, independent advice to SC upper management regarding the scientific and technical issues that arise in the planning, management, and implementation of the research programs. The Director of the Of?ce of Science charges the relevant Federal Advisory Committees to assemble subcommittees, called Committees of Visitors (COV), to assess a program?s activities on a regular basis. Every SC program element must be reviewed by a COV at least once every 3 years. Each COV panel is composed ofa group of recognized scientists and research program managers with broad expertise in the designated program areas. Panel members are familiar with DOE research programs; however, a signi?cant fraction of the COV members do not receive DOE funding. DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report 8 Office of Environmental Management The National Academy of Sciences (MAS) is chartered to evaluate technology gaps and provide technical and strategic advice to support further development of EM technology. The NAS is also chartered to evaluate the scientific and technological bases for specific aspects ofthe EM program, including assessments of existing and proposed standards, criteria, and approaches for the management of radioactive waste; and proposed priorities for research and funding. Rigorous External Technical Reviews enable EM to trend technical risk, and implement technical risk. reduction strategies. These reviews are independent and advisory to DOE not the site or project contractor) that focus on technical scope and risk. The Environmental Management Advisory Board provides independent and external advice, information, and recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for EM on corporate issues relating to cleanup and risk reduction. EMAB may study and propose options, recommendations, contracts, acquisition strategies, public and worker health and safety, integration and disposition of waste, regulatory agreements, roles and authorities, risk based end-states activities and risk reduction, cost-benefit analyses, program performance and functionality, and science requirements and applications. Specifically, at the request of the Assistant Secretary or the Site Managers, the Board may provide advice and recommendations concerning the following EM site-specific issues: clean-up standards and environmental restoration, waste management and disposition, stabilization and disposition of non-stockpile nuclear materials, excess facilities, future land use and long-term stewardship, risk assessment and management, and clean-up science and technology activities. Independent Project Reviews are also conducted to provide reasonable assurance that a project?s work activities can be accomplished within the stated cost, schedule, and scope. Office of Legacy (LM) The Of?ce of Legacy Management conducts quarterly internal evaluations to measure its performance against targets developed when LM established itselfas a hiin poi-Immng nrguuimi ion. The targets are consistent with the Department?s Strategic Plan and include performance measures identified in the LM strategic plan. LM also conducts independent evaluations of its program activities on a rotating basis. The focus, methodology, and external participation of each evaluation are dependent upon the activity. The outcome of these evaluations includes an overall assessment ofthe respective activity, identification ofpotential issues, and recommendations for future management. National Nuclear Securin Administralitm To evaluate program performance, the NNSA conducts various internal and external reviews and audits. The NNSA programmatic activities are subject to continuing review by the Congress, the US. Government Accountability Office, the Department?s Inspector General, the National Security Council, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the Department?s Office of Engineering and Construction Management, the Department?s Office of Health, Safety and Security, and various scientific groups. Each year, numerous external independent reviews are conducted for selected program and projects. Additionally, the NNSA Headquarters DOE FY 20? Arman! Performance Report 9 senior management and ?eld managers conduct frequent, in-depth reviews of cost, schedule, and scope to ensure projects are on-traek and within budget. Office of the Chief Financial Officer of Risk The Office of Risk Management conducts program evaluations on issues raised in audit reports, including follow-up on implementation of recommendations, assessment of Department-wide impacts of audit findings, and assessment of trends and recurring issues and assessments and special projects directed by CFO management to inform ?nancial management decisions. Current examples include reviews of the Department?s pension liability and management, reviews of security costs at DOE sites and the extent of indirect funding for security costs, assessments of whether sites have highlighted appropriate management risks, assessments of whether DOE sites have identi?ed adequate internal controls to mitigate identi?ed risks, assessments of the suf?ciency of testing for identi?ed controls, and assessments of the suf?ciency of corrective action plans. Office of the Inspector General {16) The IG conducts performance inspections which focus on fact-?nding and analysis regarding speci?ed management issuesr?topics. The scope of each performance inspection. is usually focused around a particular issue or topic. The IG also conducts special, expedited reviews involving high pro?le or sensitive matters, such as critical issues of immediate interest to Congress, the IG, andfor DOE senior management. The 1G issues a host of reports identifying concrete opportunities to reform Department management: contract management; waste management; environment, safety and health stewardship; research and development; major facilities and project construction and operation; and human. capital. DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report It) PERFORMANCE BY STRATEGIC GOAL The following performance discussion is aligned with the Department?s strategic goals as presented in the IMF. released in May 201 l: Transform Our Energy Systems, The Science and Engineering Enterprise, Secure Our Nation, and Management and Operational Excellence. The results are based on the budget appropriations for the corresponding fiscal year. The following table displays the overall results from DOE program metrics for the past several years: Program GoalstMeasures FY 20113 FY 2010b FY 2009? FY 2008 Ft 200?. Targets lvlet 165 2?3 285 203 189 Targets Not Met 25 65 62 15 14 Results Unknownc 1 6 3 2 Totat Number of Measures 191 344 350 220 203 Share Met 862011, DOE reduced the number of reported measures from prior years after conducting an assessment of the quality and strategic relevance of all program goals and measures. Performance results for measures related to Recovery Act projects continue to be tracked internally and are available on Recoverygov. 5 Includes performance measures for Recovery Act projects (FY 2009: 142, FY 2010: 141 a Results not available by end of fiscal year Strategic 1. Transform Our Energy Systems: Catalyse the timely, material. and efficient transformation rgf'the notion ?s energy system and secure US. in clean energy technologfes Currently, more than 80% oftotal 1.1.3. primary energy and more than 95% of US. transportation fuel comes from fossil resources; these percentages are expected to change little over the next 25 years under a business-as-usual scenario. While U.S. energy consumption and carbon-dioxide emissions are also expected to increase significantly in this scenario, global energy consumption will rise more than twice as quickly due to growing population and increasing development in non-Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development countries. Likewise, water is integral to many energy technologies, and related water demands could be ampli?ed in the future ifclimate change alters regional water cycles. Our energy technology activities should be cognizant of this interdependence. This contest frames the challenge before us: to achieve our long-term energy and environmental goals, we must change our current energy paradigm through concerted effort across public and private sectors. The progress in achieving this goal is measured annually through detailed performance metrics; FY 20] 1 results are summarized below. DOE FY 20? Annunl? Performance Report Strategic Goal 1 Targets Not Met Strategic Goal1 Budgetary FY 2011' Performance programs Expendituresa Targets Targets. Ftesults (million Met Not Met Unknown Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy: Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technologies 180 2 Biomass Biorefinery 391 4 Solar Energy 258. 5 Wind Energy 133. 3 1 Geothermal Technologies 137 1 Water Power 66 1 1 Vehicle Technologies 1,073 6 Building Technologies 369 4 Industrial Technologies 186 2 Federal Energy Management 35. 1 State Energy Program 1,299 1 Weatherization 3,525 1 DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report Electricity Delivery 3. Energy Fteliability 1,368 7' 1 Nuclear Energy: New Nuclear Generation Technologies 271 5 National Nuclear Infrastructure 343 2 Fossil Energy: Clean Goal 921 8 Petroleum Reserves 27"2 3 Power Marketing Administration: Bonneville Power Administration 3,?27 3 Southeastern Power Administration 61 2 Southwestern Power Administration 50 4 Western Area Power Administration 513 3 1 Energy Information Administration 105 2 Loan Programs: Loan Guarantees 3,093 4 2 Total $18,465 ?2 9 a Synonymous, with delivered orders amounts accrued or paid for services performed, for goods and tangible property received, or for programs for which no current service is required such as loans. Budgetary expenditures are obtained from the Budgetary Standard General Ledger and are recordedrreported based on budgetary accounting rules. Includes capital expenditures but excludes such items as depreciation, changes in unfunded liability estimates. and certain other non-fund costs and allocations of Departmental Administration activities. Priority Goals Goal 1. Retro?ts DOE and HU will work together to enable the cost-effective energy retro?ts of a total of 1.1 million housing units by the end of FY 2013 (of this number, DOE programs will contribute to retrofits of an estimated 1 million housing units) Summary of DOE has completed energy efficiency retro?ts on 769,420 homes, resulting in an estimated annual energy savings of 8437 per home Progress relrelilted and an increase in the comfort and safety of homes for many low?income American families. These retrofits will save over 21 trillion Btu of energy and reduce greenhouse gases by approximately 2 million metric tons ol?carbon dioxide equivalent annually. Through FY 201 l. DOE has exceeded the retro?t production target by 10%. At the current production pace and funding, DOE and HUD will reach the goal of .1 million retro?ts by the end of FY 2013. Minor service interruptions within the network of weatherization providers have occurred due to recent reductions in annual funding; however, all milestones and targets are currently on track. DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report Key. Number of homes FY 2011: Target 666.438; Result ?69.420 Measure, wcatherized Goal 3 Renewable Energy Double renewable energy generation (excluding conventional hydropower and biopower) by 2012 Summary of The United States is on track to double renewable energy generation from terawatt-hours of generation front solar. wind. Progress and geothermal in 2008 to I45 of generation by 2012. The Section l?05 Loan Guarantee Program came to a close on September 30. 201 1. after the successful deployment of over I 6 billion to 28 transactions. The program was created under Title XVII oftbe Energy Policy Act as part oftbe Recovery Act of 2009 to accelerate the deployment ofrenewable energy and electric power transmission projects. Almost 90 of loan volume financed by the 1?05 program is power generation projects. These DOE projects will add gigawatts (CW) in new renewable energy capacity. which is expected to generate 12 million megawatt?hours of electricity. appears on target to meet the goal. If wind, solar and geothermal each install at least as much in 201 I and 2012 as theyr did in 2010. capacity at the end of 2012 will be over 59 GW, which is estimated to generate over 145 more than double the ?1 baseline of 2008. Wind industry installations in 201 and 2012 are expected to exceed 2010 installations. Assuming continued growth. wind will be of 2012 renewable energy generation and 92% of 20] 2 capacity. Solar is also expected to double generation. Key Renewable generation FY 2011: Target 0.1 Result 0.1 GW Measure. capacity from projects receiving loan guarantees Two renewable generation projects that have received loan guarantees are currently operating. coming online Supporting Renewable generation Q3 FY 201 1: Target 3.5 Result GW Measure 1 capacity from projects receiving conditional As ofJune 30. 201 l. the DOE Loan Programs Office offered conditional commitments for loan commitments for loan guarantees to 22 renewable power generation projects totaling GW in generation capacity. guarantees Supporting Renewable generation FY 201 l: Target 3.5 Result GW Measure 2 capacity frotn projects that have achieved ?nancial As ofSept. 30. 20] l. DOE closed loan guarantees for [9 renewable power generation projects closing on loan guarantees supporting GW in generation capacity. Goal 4 Advanced Battery Assist in development and deployment of advanced battery manufacturing capacity to support Manufacturing 500,000 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) per year by 2015 Summary of Progress The Battery Manufacturing Priority Goal is on track. Since the start of this goal. DOE has veri?ed initial battery production at A123Systetns (Livonia. MI). Johnson Controls (Holland. MI). EnerDel (Indianapolis. 1N) and Saft Industrial Battery Group (Jacksonville. FL). Each ofthese companies is on track to meet its respective production capacity target. The diversity ofindustrial partners involved reduces the impact on goal achievement if any one company does not meet its production capacity target. DOE FY 20?} Annual Performance Report I4 Goal 5 Nuclear Loan Commit {conditionally} to loan guarantees for two nuclear power facilities to add new low-carbon emission capacity of at least 3,800 megawatts during 2010 Summary of This goal. was not met on. the anticipated timeline. DOE remains committed to safe and secure nuclear power and will continue to (conditional commitments} Progress. review applications for loan guarantees for nuclear power projects. Some elements of loan guarantees remain outside of the Department?s control including market forces. quality of applications and rate at which applicants proceed with their required activities. As part of our due diligence process. we seek input from. and rely on approvals by. other nuclear-related federal agencies to include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. to ensure the safety and soundness ofthe projects we support. Key Number of loan guarantees FY 2010: Target 2; Result 1 Measure. for nuclear power facilities Goal not achieved in FY 2010; measure closed out. Performance Metric Examples Measure FY 2011 Result Renewable Energy Photovoltaic (PW Energy cost of solar electricity from photovoltaics [or residential applications (8?20 cents per kWh] Reduce the levelized Significant cost reductions occurred in the price ot?photovoltaie modules. from $1.95i?watt in September 2010 to in September 201 1. allowing the program to meet its goal. Wind Number of states with at least 1.000 megawatts of wind energy installed (14 states] By end ofFY 201 1. 14 states had greater than 1.000 megawatts of wind installed, with Texas having greater titan 10.000 megawatts installed. [states included20? Aimee! Performance Report I5 Transportation Vehicle Teetmologies Reduce the cost of electric?drive technologies; demonstrate through data. simulation and modeling an when combined. of l.l kilowatt per kilogram, kilowatt per liter. at a cost of$18 per kilowatt peak Through test data. simulation, and modeling it was determined that using a number of advances in inverter and motor technology could yield a traction drive system that meet the target speci?cations. 'liechnology advances include the novel flux coupling motor. the current source inverter. integration of the two to eliminate the inductor in the inverter. and use ofadvanccd power module packages. Ef?ciency Residential Buildings Complete an energy savings measures package for new residential buildings at zero financed cost to the homeowner for one major climate region Building America Program completed 2 reports. One report is for new home construction measures at 29% and 30% savings in over 30 locations across 5 major climate zones. Second report is for existing homes measures at 15% and 20% energy savings in over 30 locations across 5 climate zones. These reports will serve as key reference points to guide ongoing researeh aimed at reducing ?rst costs and increasing energy savings. industry Achieve an estimated [00 trillion Btu energy savings from applying EERE technologies Achieved 443 trillion Btu energy savings in FY 20] Electric Grid Snian Grid Demonstrate peak load reduction or improvement in asset utilization on 2 feeder systems Based on monitoring and data collection. 2 project sites have successfully demonstrated at least 10% peak load reduction on their feeder systems and improved their asset utilization. DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report to Clean Energy Cont Support development and deployment of advanced low cost. low carbon. energy efficient electrical generation technologies; targeting {12% increase in cost of electricity (COR) compared to 2003 baseline for near?zero emissions integrated gasification combined cycle with carbon capture and storage (CCS) system. The baseline CUE is 9.4 ecntsikilmvatt?hour Annual target was met by completing work on key within an system that contribute to lower parasitic power, ef?cient gas separation, low?cost air separation, and more efficient fuel handling and feed systems. This work includes physical demonstration ofthe technologies along with system analysis to relate the work accomplished to (TOE impacts. Systems analysis studies, coordinated by the National Energy Technology Laboratory, reflected a 16% overall capital cost reduction, 2.9% increase in efficiency, and 12% decrease of CUE when Warm Gas Cleanup with Hydrogen Transport Membrane technology were integrated. Light Water Reactor Sustainability Develop the scienti?c knowledge to extend existing nuclear plant operating life beyond the current 60?year limit and ensure their long?term reliability. productivity, safety, and security by conducting activities in partnership with national laboratories, industry, universities, and international partners. DOE made substantial. progress in support ot?extending the operating life of existing nuclear power plants. There was a signi?cant increase in research. conducted in FY 20] I, with all 5? scheduled deliverables completed by the end ofthe year. Significant research results include the completion ofenhanced concrete and cable inspections at the lCiinna nuclear power plant; a detailed assessment of the experiments needed to understand irradiation?assisted stress corrosion cracking; the initiation ofthree instrumentation?and? controls?related pilot plant projects; the delivery of an initial test version oftbe next generation safety analysis code, and the irradiation of silicon carbide cladding samples at the High Flux Isotope Reactor. Note: Detailed reports for all measures are in. the section on ?Performance Results" at the back. of this report. Performance Trends Vehicle Technologies. DOE has demonstrated progress in. the vehicle technologies. area by lowering the. modeled cost ofa 25- kilowatt, lithium?ion battery for passenger hybrid electric 1vehicles (PHEV) from a baseline cost of $3,000 in 1998 to $1,180 in FY 2003- to below $700 in FY 20] 1. Cost effective batteries will enable even greater reductions in oil use over the long term. It should be noted that the performance metric for PH EV batteries is the total cost for a 25-kilowatt battery system where 25 kilowatts is the battery power requirement. for a mid-sized vehicle. DOE FY 20? Performance Report Modeled Production Cost of 25-kilowatt Passenger Vehicle Battery 1000 900 600 500 400 300 200 100 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fiscal Year Flesult ATar-get 2007 Dollars Strategic Goal 2. The Science and Engineering Enterprise: Maintain a vibrant US. effort in science and engineering as a cornerstone of our economic prosperity, with ciear isndership in strategic areas The Department of Energy supports basic research into the smallest constituents. of matter; the most ?eeting subatomic, atomic, and chemical transitions; and the structure and properties ofmaterials and biological systems. We are the largest federal funder ofthe physical sciences. This basic research extends the understanding of nature; enables. new. technologies that support the Department?s energy, environment, and security missions; and improves the quality ethic of all Americans. Scienti?c discovery feeds technology development; and, conversely, technology advances enable scientists to pursue an ever more challenging set of questions. The Department strives to maintain leadership in ?elds where this feedback is particularly strong, including materials science research, bio-energy research, and high-performance computing. The. progress. in achieving this goal is measured annually through detailed perfonnance metrics; FY 20] 1 results are summarized below. DOE FY 20? Performance Report i8 Strategic Goal 2 Targets Not Met - Met 92% FY. 2011 Strategic. Goal 2 Budgetary FY 2011 Performance programs Expenditures? Targets Targets Ftesults (million Met Not Met Unknown Advanced Scientific Computing Research 464 2 Basic Energy Sciences 1,908 4 Biological 8: Environmental Research 94? 8 Fusion Energy Sciences 435 3 1 High Energy Physics 950 4 Nuclear Physics 626. 5 1 Total $5,328 24 2 a Synonymous with delivered orders amounts accrued or paid for services performed. for goods and tangible property received. or for programs for which no current service is required such as loans. Budgetary expenditures are obtained from the Budgetary Standard General Ledger and are recordedireported based on budgetary accounting rules. Includes capital expenditures but excludes such items as depreciation, changes in unfunded liability estimates. and certain other non-fund costs and allocations of Departmental Administration activities. DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report I9 Performance Metric Examples Measure FY 2011 Result Operations Advanced Scienti?c Computing Research! usage of primary supercomputer at National Energy Research Scientific Computing lCenter for capability computing (computations that require at least lit? of this resource, 4:396 processors) 49% average usage (target: Research Nuclear Physics! CEBAF Detector effective usage of integrated delivered beam for experimental research in each Hall at the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) 84% effective usage (target: 3?309?i1] Faiare Facilities High Energy Firm-tries)" Construction cost-weighted mean percentage variance from established cost and schedule baselines for major construction. upgrade. or equipment procurement projects 3% cost variance; 4? 0 schedule variance (target: ?lU?l?b} Nate: Detailed reports for. all. measures are in the section on ?Performance Results? at the back of this report. Performance Trends Scienti?c. Facilities. The DOE national science user facilities provide the nation's researchers with state-of?the-art, discovery-class tools the large machines of modern science. Discovery-class tools enable researchers to view and to model the world at its extremes from the tiniest bits of matter to the limits of the cosmos. These tools attract researchers from all over the world and enable discoveries that truly change the course of science. These research facilities are large and typically require resource commitments well beyond the scope of any nongovernmental institution. Because the initial cost of the facilities is large often in the hundreds of millions? even billions, ofdollars and the research they support is unique, operating the facilities well is also a high priority. The chart below shows the results for the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) facilities, where the ratio of actual average operation time to DOE FY 20? Armani Performance Report planned operational hours has been greater than the target of 90% for each year. These results demonstrate efficient use of funding for leading research in intense x-ray sources, neutron scattering centers, electron beam characterization capabilities, and nanoscale science, Average Achieved. Operation. Time of BES Scientific User Facilities as Percentage of Total Scheduled Annual Operating Time 106 104 102 100 \?L?bgbr?o?a?ltcbib ece Percent Fiesult lTarget Fiscal Year Note: Percentages may exceed 100% ue to th definition lor this metric of ?scheduled hours" as ?estimated plan necl hoursi'at the time the app ropn'ation becomes law. Strategic 3. Secure Our Nation: Enhance nuclear security through dc tense, nonproliferation. and environmental efforts The Department of Energy primarily through the National Nuclear Security Administration is central to preventing proliferation and nuclear terrorism and sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal. DOE has added responsibility for cleaning up the environmental legacy of the Cold War?s nuclear weapons complex. Through engagement with the International Atomic Energy DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report 2] Agency and other international and interagency partners, the Department has a leading role in nonproliferation and cooperative threat- reduction programs. This expertise positions the Department ideally to help shape policy surrounding future deployment of nuclear power globally. Just as the Department is the trusted authority on the safety, security, and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, it can apply science, technology, and engineering to ensure future nuclear power systems can be deployed safely and securely with appropriate mitigation of risks from terrorism and proliferation. The Department has the monumental task of cleaning up the environmental legacy from five decades of nuclear weapons development and government-sponsored nuclear energy research. We have been successfully mitigating the technically challenging risks and have made substantial progress in nearly every area of nuclear waste cleanup, including stabilizing and consolidating special nuclear material and safely storing tons of used nuclear fuel. We have continued to build momentum in disposing ofsolid radioactive wastes, remediating contaminated soil and water, and deactivating and decommissioning radioactively contaminated facilities, with each succeeding year building on the last. Our Intelligence and Counterintelligence program provides the Secretary, his staff, and other policymakers within the Department timely, technical intelligence analyses on all aspects of foreign nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, and energy issues worldwide. Progress for these and other programs in securing our nation is measured annually through detailed performance metrics. Most FY 2011 results are detailed in this document. Intelligence and Counterintelligence results are provided by the Of?ce of the Director of National Intelligence. DOE FY 20? Arman! Performance Report 22 Strategic Goal 3 Targets Results Unknown 1% Not Met Met Strategic Goal 3 amigo FY 2011 Performance programs Expendituresa Targets Targets Results. (million Met Not Met Unknown NNSA Weapons Activities: Directed Stockpile Work 1,964 3 1 Science Campaign 359 3 Engineering Campaign 151 5 Inertial? Confinement Fusion Ignition 8; 49? 3 1 High Yield Campaign Advanced Simulation Computing 635 3 Campaign Readiness Campaign 156 4 Readiness in Technical Base ft Facilities 1,870 4 Secure Transportation Asset 244 3 Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident 243 1 Response Facilities 8! Infrastructure Ftecapitalization 101 2 Site Stewardship 83 2 DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report 23 Defense Nuclear Security 791 4 1 Cyber Security 12? 1 2 NNSA Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation: Nonproliferation 8( Verification 346 6 Nonproliferation 8: International Security 186 5 International Nuclear Materials Protection 581 3 2 8: Cooperation Elimination of Weapons?Grade Plutonium Production 5? 2 Fissile Materials Disposition 83? 2 1 Global Threat Reduction Initiative 353 3 1 NNSA Naval Reactors 968 4 1 NNSA Office of the Administrator 435 2 Environment Management 8,056 3 4 Legacy Management 180 2 Total $19,190 69 14 1 a Synonymous with delivered orders amounts accrued or paid for services performed. for goods and tangible. property received, or for programs for which no current service is required such as loans. Budgetary expenditures are obtained from the Budgetary Standard General Ledger and are recordedtreported based on budgetary accounting rules. Includes capital expenditures but excludes such items as depreciation. changes in unfunded liability estimates. and certain other non?fund costs and allocations of Departmental Administration activities. Priority Goals Goal 2 Legacy Waste Reduce the Department?s Cold War legacy environmental footprint by 4tl% by 2011 Summary of lCompleted goal of 40% footprint reduction 5 months early and under budgetreduced approximater 900 Progress square mile legacy footprint to 318 square miles1 or approximately 66% of the total footprint. Key Reduce footprint by 40% 03 FY NI 1: Target 41%; Result 50% Measure Exceeded goal by completing certain sub?areas ofthe Hanford and Savannah River sites ahead of schedule. DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report 24 Supporting Maintain cumulative cost FY 2011: Target 90%; Result 107'9?6 Measure 1 performance index 010094;: or greater Supporting Maintain cttmulative FY 20] 1: Target 90%; Result 101 Measure 2 schedule performance index of 90% or greater Goal 6 Secure Nuclear Materials Make significant progress toward securing the most vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide within 4 years Summary of Progress In response to the threat of international terrorists acquiring material to develop weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear Nonproliferation program works closely with a wide range of international partners, US. federal agencies, DOH national laboratories, and the private sector to detect, secure. and dispose ofdangerous nuclear and radiological material. 'l'hwarting the ability for terrorists, or rogue states that harbor terrorist organizations, to acquire nuclear weapons or weapons?usable materials is the primary goal ofthis program and directly supports the Department?s goal to secure the most vulnerable material in 4 years announced in Prague in April 2009. At the end of FY 20] the two programs have made significant progress towards aclticving this goal. has made significant progress towards securing vulnerable nuclear material by removing a cumulative total of3,125 kilograms ofnuclear materials from at least two dozen countries enough highly enriched uraniutn to make tnore than 120 nuclear weapons. A total 01272 kilograms ofnuclear material was removed during FY 20] 1 enough for more than 10 nuclear weapons. Key Measure. 1 Cumulative number of kilograms of vulnerable nuclear material {highly enriched uranium and plutonium) removed or disposed FY 2011: Target 3.293; Result 3,125 The program achieved 95% of the cumulative target in FY 201 1. In the first quarter, 232 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEB) were removed {43.5 kilograms from Poland, 88 kilograms from Belarus. 13.1 kilograms from Serbia, 50.? kilogratns from Ukraine. 1.4 kilograms from Li?anada, 3.4 kilograms from Italy, 12.7 kilograms from Belgium, and 19.? kilograms from the United States). There were no additional. kilograms of HEIJ removed or disposed ot?during the second or third quarters. In the fourth quarter 39.? kilograms of were removed or disposed of [33 kilograms down blended in Kazakhstan. 5.8 kilograms removed from South Africa. and 0.9 kilograms removed from Canada). DOE FY 2011' Annual Performance Report 25 Key ICumulative number of FY 2011: Target 218; Result 218 Measure 2 buildings containing weapons usable material Achieved target; increase of'S buildings in FY 20] l. with completed material protection. control, and accounting upgrades Goal 7 Nuclear Weapons Maintain the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and dismantle excess nuclear weapons to meet national nuclear security requirements as assigned by the President through the Nuclear Posture Review Summary of continues to take important steps to tnaintain the nuclear weapons stockpile and dismantle excess nuclear weapons. The Progress Secretaries of Energy and Defense completed the joint ?Annual Weapon Stockpile Assessment" for the President. which addresses the status of safety. reliability, performance. and military effectiveness for each warhead in the US. nuclear weapon stockpile. The progratn continues to tneet its objectives of assuring that 100% ofthe warheads in the stockpile are safe. secure. reliable. and available for deployment. Despite numerous technical challenges. DOHNNSA has delivered sufficient life extended W26 warheads to meet the Navy?s deployment schedule in F?r? 2010 and FY 201 1 and remains on track to meet future deliveries. Key Annual percentage of FY 20] 1: Target 100%; Result 100% Measure warheads in the Stockpile that is safe. secure. Achieved annual target. whereby the nuclear warheads in the active stockpile were assessed through the reliable. and available to Annual Assessment process as being safe. secure. reliable (effective) and available to the President for the President for deployment. deployment (long?term assurance) Supporting Cumulative percentage of FY 201 1: Target 65%; Result 65% Measure 1 progress in completing Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) approved WTo?l Life Extension Program (LEP) activity Achieved cumulative annual target in accordance with the new WTo?l baseline schedule. The previous target for FY 201 1 was 56%. The target has been changed and the production program re?baselined as a result oi'the implementation of the Nuclear Posture Review and in accordance with the current planning in the DOE Nuclear Weapons Council Requirements and Planning Document. DOE FY 20? Arman! Performance Report 26 Supporting Measure 2 ICumulative percent reduction in projected was?1 warhead production costs per warhead [i?om established validated baseline, as computed and reported annually by the was Life Extension Program (LEP) Cost Control Board FY 2011: Target Result Did not achieve the annual target, based on the current recovery schedule. The cost savings realized for the ?rst quarter were consumed by ongoing resolution of technical issues associated with the Win?l production. For the MC4T13 Launch Accelerometer, the cost savings were expended on additional technical support, additional process analyses, acceleration ol?tcst equipment availability, and tooling procurements to provide necessary mitigation for process variations {that will occur during long-term manufacturing as in the was-1 schedule) in order to continue fully supporting ramp-up to full scale production. and final steady state production. Performance Metric Examples Measure FY 2011 Result t?t?ttcl?enr Materiai Giobni Threat Reduction Initiative cumulative number of highly enriched uranium reactors converted or veri?ed as shutdown prior to conversion. Convert or veri?ed the shutdown. ofa cumulative 76 research reactors, exceeding the annual target by 1. Four reactors were converted or shutdown this year, I in China, 1 in Czech Republic, and 2 in Russia. To date conversion of these reactors has resulted in HEU avoidance per year. Russian HEU cumulative metric tons of Russian weapons-usable HEU that U.S. experts have con?rmed as permanently eliminated from the Russian stockpile under the HEU Purchase Agreement Exceeded the annual target of432 metric tons (MT), by for a total ot?433MT by con?rming the elimination of an additional 30 MT of HEU. This provides assurance that weapons-grade material is being eliminated from Russials stockpile and is no longer available for military use. Detection Teetmoiogr cumulative percentage of progress toward demonstrating the next generation. oftechnologies and methods to detect Special Nuclear Material movement Met the annual target of 80? a cumulative progress towards demonstrating the next generation oftechnologies to detect Special Nuclear Material movement. This result is important because it improves U.S. capability to detect the illicit transport and diversion ofspeeial nuclear material. DOE FY 20? Armani Performance Report 2? Dirt-section Sines cumulative number ofSecond Line of Defense sites with nuclear detection equipment installed [including cumulative number of Megaports completed] Completed 460 of463 targeted Second Line of Defense sites. including 39 oftargeted 45 Megaports. Achieving this result is important because it provides host governments with the technical. means to detect, deter and interdict illicit trafficking of nuclear and other radioactive materials. Because this target was missed. deployment of detectors for high?transit ports must be delayed in the coming fiscal years. Nuclear Weapons Stockpiic Maintenance Annual percentage of items supporting Enduring Stockpile Maintenance completed (annual percentage ol?prior?year non? items completed) Achieved the annual target by completing at least 95% {100% of prior year] ol?scheduled stockpile maintenance. This result is important because it keeps active nuclear weapons fully operational, if needed by the President. Tritium Production Cumulative number ol?Trititint?Producing Burnable Absorber Rods irradiated in Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) reactors to provide the capability ofcollecting new tritium to replace inventory for the nuclear weapons stockpile Achieved the cumulative target of 1.328 TPBARs [increase of240 TPBARs) irradiated in TVA reactors. This result is important because irradiation is essential for the establishment of an assured domestic source of tritium to meet the continuing needs of the nuclear weapons stockpile. Legacy Was ta Decmania-trang cumulative number of radioactive facilities where decotnmission work is cotnplete 393 facilities completed (target 400) Disposition cumulative total of uranium containers packaged for disposition 8,00? containers packaged (target 1953) Nora: Detailed reports for all measures are in the section on ?Performance Results? at the back of this report. DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report 28 Performance Trends Git)an Threat Reduction. efforts in the area of global. threat reduction. contribute to the goal of preventing nuclear terrorism by reducing and protecting vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials located at civilian sites worldwide. The following chart shows progress toward the goal of increasing the number of highly enriched uranium (HEU) reactors converted or shut down prior to conversion. Cumulative HEU Reactors Converted or Shut Down Ftesult 2005 200? 2000 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fiscal Year Environmental Cleanup. DOE has reduced the Cold War legacy environmental footprint by 66% by the. end ofFY 201 1. widely surpassing the Priority Goal target of 40%. Over the years the program has consistently tracked a set of corporate performance metrics that show the incremental progress in cleaning up components of our legacy sites, from highly enriched uranium to tank waste to highly dispersed but less radioactive TRU waste to the numbers of buildings and release sites completes. For example, the following chart shows the cumulative performance in deconstructing and decommissioning radioactive facilities, a key indicator of cleanup progress. The program has completed about 36% of the estimated 1,080 total radioactive facilities. DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report 29 Cumulative Radioactive Facilities Completed 450 400 350 A A 300 250 Flesull 200 aTarget 150 100 50 0 I I I I 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 200? 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fiscal Year Strategic Goal 4. Management and Operational Excellence: Establish an operational and adaptablejremeworit that combines the best wisdom ofrtii Department stakeholders to maximize mission success Success in achieving the Department?s first three strategic goals requires a sustained commitment to management excellence from headquarters to every site office, service center, laboratory, and production facility. The Department seeks to develop the most highly quali?ed, capable, and ?exible federal. workforce. Focus is also on improving the. rigor. of our research and development management so that only those activities that have the greatest potential and likelihood for impact are supported; decisions are fully informed by rigorous peer review; and results of supported activities are effectively disseminated. Project management improvements are relentlessly pursued and regulatory authorities are exercised in a manner that is strategic and ef?cient. The management principles require the. implementation ofa culture. that clearly. links. work to agency goals, holds employees accountable. for meeting the mission, and appropriately rewards employees for their efforts. This requires careful use of public resources, faithful compliance with the highest ethical and legal standards, increased transparency of ?nancial and operational data systems, vigilant DOE FY 20? Auntie! Performance Report 30 protection of safety and security, and effective information technology and cyber-security systems. The progress in achieving this goal is evaluated annually through measures of performance; FY 20] 1 progress is summarized below. Performance Metric Examples MeasurefGoal FY 2011 Result Employee Hiring Time reduce average time-to-hire. for General Schedule and equivalent positions [from initiation date to entry on duty date] from 174 to 80-day average while continuing to attract quality hires and ensure the right skill sets are on board by 2012 Average was. reduced to. 100 days; progress also made to. develop a tracking and reporting system to provide more meaningful data for hiring managers Website Reform reduce, consolidate, andior move 25% of websites to platform by August 20] 40% by December 201 Reduced, consolidated, and moved websites to the Energygov platform to achieve cost savings; new web platform was launched that includes 16 consolidated sites in an open source content management system and cloud hosting environment Support Service Contracts achieve cost savings by October 201 I through ef?ciencies in. support service contracts Achieved a cost reduction Financial. Transparency implement flnancial transparency by April 20] (cg, functional cost reporting] Quarterly reporting capability was developed for timely and reliable functional institutional cost information from our national laboratories; dashboard prototype is in the development stages Project and Contract Management complete more than 90% of capital asset projects at the original scope and within 110% ofthe cost baseline Office of Science achieved 100% success rate; exceeding target Fleet Reduction reduce. headquarters ?eet by 35% by December 2011; reduce DOE?wide fleet by 35% within three years; increase use of alternative fuel vehicles Reduced headquarters ?eet by. 35% and replaced more than 7?50 vehicles DOE?wide with hybrid vehicles DOE FY 20? Performance Report 3! Strategic Sourcing provide common approach to core supplies and services: achieve cost savingsg?avoidance Significant costs were saved or avoided within the program offices by expanding the use ofbulk purchasing and other methods Disposition of Excess Reoi Property eliminate excess real starting in June 2011 [1.3 million square feet in FY 2011 and million square feet in FY 2012] Eliminated a. cumulative 4.6 million gross square feet ofexeess real property. lowering overall stewardship costs DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Repori 32 FY 2010 UNMET PERFORMANCE GOALS Program Activity FY 2010 Performance. GoaUTarget Status Strategic Goal 1. Transform {)ur Energy Systems Solar Market Integration Complete technical assistance to 20 Solar America Target met in ?rst quarter of FY Cities to address issues such as ?nancing, permitting. 201 1. Technical assistance was city planning, and outreach provided to 20 Solar Cities. Wind Energy Low Wind Speed 3.8 cents per kilowatthour modeled cost of wind power Target met in. FY 201 1. Measure Technology in land-based Class 4 wind speed areas 13 mph. annual average wind speed at 33 feet above ground) 9.10 cents per kilowatthour modeled cost of wind power in Class 6 wind speed areas 15 annual average wind speed at 33 feet above ground) for shallow offshore systems changed to market cost instead of modeled cost in FY 201 Wind Energy Technology Application 30 states with at least 100 megawatts ofwind power Target still unmet. Measure capacity installed. and 7" states with over 1,000 changed to "states with 231000 megawatts of wind power capacity installed megawatts" to enable large?scale deployment. Biomass Utilization of Platform Resolution on critical factors (eg. Loan Guarantees. Target met in FY 201 Outputs Debt Financing. NEPA determination) allowing for a decision to enter into an Award 2 for the construction of up to four more bioreftnery projects [up to ?ve in total) DOE FY 20? Arman! Performance Report 33 Program Activity FY 2010 Performance GoalfTarget Status Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Energy Storage Program Demonstrate the capability of novel lead-carbon ultrabatteries. using operational modes developed speci?cally for PV-hybrid battery systems. to provide at least four times the cycle life of batteries currently used Lead-acid (VRLA) batteries. currently used to support residential PV, are reduced to 80% capacity after 40 cycles. Advanced lead-carbon batteries have been shown to have a cycling life similar to lithium?ion batteries at one third the cost. After developing appropriate chargei?discharge and equalization protocols. the ability ofthese new batteries to sustain effectiveness For over 160 full cycles will be demonstrated, resulting in a corresponding decrease in system cost. All project goals were achieved and all milestones were met on schedule. FY 2010 target of showing that the Ultrabattety technology was capable of achieving four times the cycle-life ot'conventional VRLA batteries in a speci?c PV-hybrid cycling environment was easily met. Results to date indicate that the Ultrabattery technology is capable of achieving over six times greater cycle life than conventional technology. The secondary goals of this work were also achieved by defining operating parameters For using the Ullrabattery in PV?hybrid power systems. Full details will be available in the ?nal report on the project. Loan Programs Loan Guarantees Percentage ot?projeets at commercial operation stage FY 2010 Target: 7% This measure is no longer being tracked. DOE FY 20? Arman! Performance Report 34 Program. Activity FY 2010 Performance GoalfTarget Status Strategic Goal 2. The Science and Engineering Enterprise Nuclear Physics Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) Detector Achieve at least 80% ofthe integrated delivered beam used effectively for experimental research in each of Halls A, B, and at the CEBAF measured as a percentage ofthe scheduled delivered beam considered effective for each Hall FY 2010 target was not met. Performance measure was continued with a revised annual target based on appropriated funding for FY 201 l. Strategic Goal 3. Secure Our Nation Weapons Activities" Directed Stockpile Work W76 Life Extension Program (LEP) Cumulative percent reduction in projected W76 warhead production costs per warhead from established validated baseline, as computed and reported annually by the W76 LEP Cost Control Board FY 2010 Target: 1% Current and future quarterly reporting will liker remain ?unmet,? since LEP site-based costs continue to increase due to dif?cult technical issues and their resolution. Additional W764 LEP costs are anticipated in FY 2012 due to resolution of remaining technical and t:leliw3t"jir issues that surfaced in mid?FY 2009. FY 2010mitigate these additional costs. cost ef?ciencies at the production plants were. implemented in FY 2009, FY 2010. and FY 2011. Warhead per unit cost savings over the remaining 8?year production period will continue to be identified. DOE FY 2071 Arman! Performance Report 35 Program Activity. FY 2010 Performance GoalfTarget Status. Weapons Activitiess? Directed Stockpile Work W76 Cumulative percentage of progress in completing Nuclear Weapons Council-approved W764 Life Extension Program activity FY 2010 Target: 52% Achieved 100% of the cumulative annual target for FY 2010 in accordance with the new Wild-1 baseline schedule. The production program has been re- baselined as a result ofthe implementation ot?the Nuclear Posture Review and in accordance with the current planning in the Nuclear Weapons Council Requirements and Planning Document. The new baseline (supporting the Nuclear Posture Review, based on the NWC decision to extend the production ofthe WTti?l Life Extension Program and the 201 RFD) is formally released through the NWSP {and the 2011 RPD) and is incorporated into the W700 1_ PCD (20114?; dated 1 . The W764 Life Extension Program continues to maintain or exceed the baseline production rates established in FY 2009 despite the technical issues encountered prior to full-scale production. Weapons Activitiest Science Campaign First Principles Physics Models Cumulative percentage of progress in replacing key empirical paratneters in the nuclear explosive package assesstnent with first principles physics models assessed by validation with experiment FY 2010 Target: 60% FY 2010 target was met by achieving 62.6% progress in FY 201 . DOE FY 2011' Annual Performance Report 36 Program Activity FY 2010. Performance GoalfTarget Status Weapons Activitiesr? Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign National Ignition Facility (NIP) Cumulative percentage of progress towards demonstrating ignition (simulating fusion conditions in a nuclear explosion) at the National Ignition Facility to increase confidence in modeling nuclear weapons performance FY 2010 Target: 100% In FY 201 l= continued beginning ?rst integrated ignition experiments. While NIF is fully operational with many significant accomplishments, NIF has not demonstrated ignition; and the path to achieving ignition remains an open scientific challenge. Weapons Aetivities.-" Inertial IConfinement Fusion Ignition and Iligh Yield Campaign Nuclear Explosive Package Assessment Cumulative percentage ol'progress in replacing key empirical parameters in the nuclear explosive package assessment with Iirst principles physics models assessed by validation with experiment FY 2010 Target: 60? 0 FY 2010 target was met by achieving 62.6% progress in FY 201 1. Weapons Activitiesr? Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response Emergency Operations Readiness Emergency Operations Readiness Index measures the overall organizational readiness to respond to and mitigate radiological or nuclear incidents worldwide. FY 2010 Target: 91 FY 2010 target is such that increased performance in subsequent years cannot compensate for underperformance Weapons Activities" Site Stewardship NNSA Long-Term Stewardship Program Cumulative cost savings totaling 12% over six years for the NNSA Long?Term Stewardship program demonstrated by comparison ol'lhe actual annual costs ofperforming the Stewardship activities at a site as compared to the budgeted annual costs of performing FY 2010 Target: 2% Fluctuations in the program savings varies year by year due to inconsistencies in regulatory requirements from year to year. Due to these inconsistencies this measure will no longer be tracked beginning in FY 2012. DOE FY 2011' Annual Performance Report 3? FY. 2010 Program. Activity Performance GoalfTarget Status Weapons Activitiesr? Site Assessment Annual percentage ofplanned Cyber Security Site End of FY 2010 effectiveness Cyber Security Assessment Visits conducted by the Office of the Chief rating was 0. Since the Information Officer Cyber Security Program Manager at NNSA sites that resulted in a rating of?ef?ective" FY 2010 Target: 100% performance measure is annual. the measure stands as unmet. In FY 201 1: the sites that were assessed had an effectiveness rating of 100%; however. 3 sites planned for assessment in FY 201 were moved to FY 2012. Defense Nuclear Nonproliferationf International Nuclear Materials Protection and Regulations Cumulative number of regulations in the development phase for the Russian Federation and countries FY 2010 Target: 194 FY 2010 target was met as the program exceeded its FY 201 I target. Cooperation Defense Nuclear Nonproliteration..-" International Nuclear Materials Protection and FY 2010 target was met as the program achieved most oI?its FY 2011 target. Megaporls Cumulative number oI?Megaports with host country cost?sharing. resulting in decreased cost to the US. program {estimated cost sharing value) Cooperation FY 2010 Target: 12 ($66 million) Second Line of Defense (SLD) Sites Defense Nuclear Nonproliferationf International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation Cumulative number of SLD sites with nuclear detection equipment installed (cumulative number of Megaports completed) FY 2010 Target: 404 {41] FY 2010 target for SLD was achieved during FY 201 however. the target number of Megaports was not met. Defense Nuclear Nonproliferationi? Elimination of Weapons? Grade Plutonittm Production Zheleznogorsk Fossil Plant Cumulative percentage of progress towards constructing a fossil plant in Zheleznogorsk. facilitating the shutdown of one weapons?grade plutonium production reactor FY 2010 Target: 93% Cumulative target of completing 100% ofthe U.S.?funded construction is complete: Critical Decision?4 (Project Closeout] was approved by the NNSA on July 5, 201 . DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report 38 FY 2010 Program Activity Performance Goalr'Target Status Defense Nuclear Zheleznogorsk Fossil Plant Annual Cost Performance Index for Zheleznogorsk This project has been completed construction as measured by the ratio of budgeted costs and is in closeout. Elimination ofWeapons- Grade Plutonium Production. oftvork scheduled to actual costs ofvvork performed FY 2010 Target: Defense Nuclear Mixed Oxide Fuel Cumulative percentage ofthe designt construction, and FY 20l 0 target was met as the Nonproliferationf Fabrication Facility cold start?up activities completed for the Mixed Oxide program achieved most oFits FY Fissile Materials Fuel Fabrication Facility 201 target Disposition FY Target: 49% Environmental Nuclear Facilities Complete a cumulative total oi'99 nuclear Facilities Target recalibrath in FY 20] to Management 94 and achieved. Environmental Release Site Remediation Complete remediation work at a cumulative total of FY 2010 target was met a Management 7,158 release sites cumulative 11 release sites were completed 20? Annual Performance Report 39 FY 2011 PERFORMANCE RESULTS The Department?s performance measures and goals are tracked quarterly through a Performance Measure Manager (PM M) system. The annual progress made toward outcome-oriented, multi-year program goals is a key indicator of whether the Department is making progress toward its strategic goals. For FY 2011. the Department tracked 191 perfonnance measures that provide detailed information and an. assessment of progress for the program goals associated with the corresponding funding requests. DOE has reduced the number of reported measures from prior years after conducting an assessment of the quality and strategic relevance of all program goals and measures. In the FY 2009 and 2010 Annual Performance Reports, DOE combined supplemental American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 {Recovery Act} and conventional base (no?year) appropriation performance measure outcomes. In FY 201 l. DOE completed a comprehensive analysis of its performance measures to improve linkage of expenditures to outputs and outcomes and remove ineffective or unnecessary perfonnance measures from the portfolio. As part of this analysis, DOE decided to exclude Recovery Act performance outcomes from this and subsequent annual reports, because information is readily available to the public through various websites (Recovery;or, DOE also continues to monitor and analyze Recovery Act performance internally through the completion ofall projects. DOE FY 20? Annual Performance Report 40 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Website: fuel cells.html Performance Goal: Hydrogen Fuel Cells Improve the catalyst utilization of fuel cells, as measured in units of kilowatts per gram {leg} of platinum group metal, from 2.8 leg in 2008 to 4.0 leg in 2011 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Improved fuel cell power output per gram of catalyst (in units of kW per gram (leg) of platinum group metal), from 2.8 leg in 2008 to 5.6 l4;ng in 201 1 .This was achieved using nanostructured thin film developed by 3M. The high specific activity of these which are based on nanoscale whiskers of platinum alloyed with cobalt and manganese, combined with the excellent transport characteristics of fuel cell electrodes incorporating NSTF, allows high power density to be achieved with low PGM loading. Documentation: Result provided by 3M Corporation with commentary and reference saved in the Joule folder on the Cl drive at - Joule, EE-1 Critical Milestone Doc PARTR201 1 JouleiQtl?iFuel Cell System Supporting Documentation. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 4] Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Website: fuel cells.html Performance Goal: Hydrogen/Fuel Cells Relative to the 2010 baseline, decrease the capital equipment cost for hydrogen production using renewable resources by 10%. Two hydrogen production technologies that may be addressed include water electrolysis and bio-derived liquid reforming. 2010 baseline capital equipment costs include: water electrolysis, $2.65fgge (gallon of gasoline equivalent); pyrolysis bio-oil reforming, $2.45r?gge. Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Achieved over 10% capital cost reduction. The projected capital costs in 201 1 for distributed catalytic autothermal reforming of pyrolysis oil was $2.13fgge of hydrogen delivered and dispensed {in $2005). This represents an improvement of 18% from the 2010 baseline and results from improvements in catalyst performance achieved through the use of a 0.5% Pthl203 BASF catalyst. Documentation: Results were provided by NREL in their 201 1 Al?le presentation. These have been saved in the Joule folder on the drive at - Joule, EE-1 Critical Milestone Doc 8; PARR2011 Joulethl?iFuel Cell System Supporting Documentation. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 42 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Biomass and Eliorefinery Website: Performance Goal: Biomass integrated Biorei?ineries Validate the total production capacity of 100 million gallons of advanced biofuels by 2014 FY 2011 target: +5 million gallons Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met The Quarter 3 milestone outlined the three projects that met the 03 milestone which provided the background for meeting both the milestone and the target. The validation of the additional 5 million gallons of biofuels production capacity was embodied in two Engineering Independent Reports (EIR) issued for both the Abengoa Hugoton and Mascoma Frontier Renewables projects. 2010 Not Met There existed six projects with potential to meet this target and start construction in FY 2010 - Flambeau River Eliofuels addition to the existing pulp mill in Park Falls, Wisconsin; New Page addition to the existing pulp mill in Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin; Mascoma Frontier Renewables Refinery in Kinross, Michigan; Red Shield Acquisition modification to the existing pulp mill in Old Towne, Maine; Lignol Biorefinery in Femdale, Washington; and Pacific BioGasol West Coast Biorefinery in Boardman, Oregon. Insufficient readiness was achieved by these projects to be able to meet this performance target. 2009 Not Met The Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass Kansas plant that is to be sited in Hugoton, Kansas was the commercial scale biorefinery that addresses this target. While the engineering is essentially complete, orders for long lead items are being placed (boilers and combustion equipment}, vendor packages are being prepared {enzymatic hydrolysis equipment) and other infrastructure critical items are being. managed {feedstock supply contract negotiations}, the. approval of the design by. DOE. is not possible since. the Engineering Independent Review (EIR). process could. not be initiated in time to verify. this level. of readiness by. September 30, 2009. Thesetinal design and procurement efforts were undertaken in August and September, 2009, preventing the. scheduling of the EIR until Octoben?November 2009. Documentation: The. EIR reports are confidential and business sensitive and found. in. the files of the Golden Field Office. . In summary, the EIR report, September..2010, cited that the. integrated technologiesthat comprise the existing. design. were. technically sound for. producing ethanol from biomass. and indicated thatthe project should be capable. of producing 6.8 million. gallons per year. initially and scale up to 12.6 million gallons per year. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 43 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Biomass and Eliorefinery R80 Website: Performance Goal: Biomass Biomass Feedstock Piatform Reduce feedstock supply system logistics cost to 38.1 dollars per dry matter ton ($tDtvI ton, in $2007) to support the development of cost? effective, high tonnage feedstock logistics systems and enable the supply of biomass feedstocks for a growing bio-based industry Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 lvlet This milestone was achieved through cumulative accomplishments demonstrated in the Fy1 1-Ct1 Q2 and 03 milestones. The Q1 milestone established the baseline system by which FY1 1 research would be compared in order to determine improvements to the system through field research and data. The O2 milestone demonstrated that tarping is the preferred method for storing ?dry,? baled biomass in the conventional bale supply system design. This storage method minimizes dry matter losses relative to wrapped and uncovered storage, and results in a cost savings of $0.81 per dry ton. The Q3 milestone demonstrated an increase in biomass throughput during the grinding operation, which resulted in a cost saving of $0.88 per ton. The $0.01 remaining to achieve the overall cost reduction goal of $1.70 per ton was identified during C14 in Indirect inefficiencies in collection and roadsiding operations and efficiencies in handling operations. 2010 Met The focus was on methods to prevent storage losses due to bale moisture content. In FY 2008 a bale wrapping system was used to prevent the direct contact of water with bales to guarantee that losses due to moisture are kept below an acceptable In FY 2010, a more cost effective bale tarping method was investigated. A combination of the advancements made in the areas described above has resulted in the final cost of the supply system being reduced to the target cost of $3180 per DM ton. Nutrient use efficiency - Several key assumptions were made and a methodology was constructed that established nutrient use. efficiencies (lbs biomassilbs nutrients) for both conventional and dedicated energy. crop agronomic systems. These. efficiencies were then evaluated against the conventional system for each dedicated energy crop of interest in every county determining if that crop would provide at least a 5% increase in nutrient use efficiency. Soil organic matter Due to the limited amount of data available from Sun Grant Regional Feedstock Partnership field trials, the approach to satisfying the milestone has relied on environmental process modeling. The residue removal analysis tool being developed under the Regional Partnership provided the analysis framework. The modeling process has implemented a county average soil and management approach. Utilizing the residue removal tool, soils data baseline soil organic matter levels have been determined. The analysis then utilized accepted, state?of?the?art models to introduce the herbaceous species and management practices into the production system. 2008 lvlet "The KDF will be functional and available for a limited number of users on October 1, 2009. The system will provide access to data from the SGI field trials, including uploading and downloading of spreadsheets as well as map based access to this data. Additionally, a complex security model to support user management of the availability of this data has been designed and partially implemented. When fully implemented in FY 2010, this will allow researchers to manage security for their own uploads and downloads. The system will also contain select datasets from the billion ton update, MASS, HSIP Gold, and a limited number of other datasets that have been provided through the KDF research efforts. This includes literature which will populate the Knowledge Compendium. None of this data will be automatically updated or otherwise vetted; however, automatic updates and data management are goals that will be exglored in FY 2010 and FY 2011. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 44 We have produced a comprehensive, validated geo?database of US corn?based ethanol biorefineries which includes accurate geospatial location information, on?site storage capability for finished product, rail siding capacity and accessibility, barge access, and other distribution and transportation attributes. ORNL is also partnering with to obtain additional production and feedstock attributes for the biorefineries which will be populated early in the next fiscal year. The gee-database is also being expanded for biodiesel and cellulosic production facilities and will be made available in early FY 2U10 through the KDF. We have been working closely with the Billion Ton Update effort and two preliminary datasets have been received describing poplar (residues, thinning, and other) from 2007 and estimated crop residues from the 2009 baseline run in which the residues were harvested using a baler. These datasets have been used in the development of a data model which will be fully implemented in FY 2010. Currently, we are providing access to this preliminary data through a limited number of maps and made available for querying, visualizing, and downloading in the KDF. Extensive access to the data through the KDF interface including complex visualization and querying capabilities will also be completed early in FY 2010, 2008 Met Fteplicated field trials using model energy crops were established across the most promising energy crop regions, and field trials are also underway to determine the effect of residue removal on crop productivity and soil health and obtain time series data on net primary productivity and sustainability metrics for soil carbon and other soil nutrients. Interagency Ftegional Feedstock Partnership development of a corn stover residue removal computer model also began, and a Geographic Information System team has also been established at the five SunGrant centers and will supply their area data for modeling and storage purposes. 2007 Met Documentation: The prototype Vermeer BG480E electric bale grinder was used to evaluate the grinding capacity of a depot-scale system. The BG4BDE is a change in grinder platform from the modeled in 0?s Joule Milestone Report, DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Reporr 45 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Biomass and Eliorefinery Website: Performance Goal: Biomass Feedstock infrastructure Improve the sustainably harvestable yield in average dry matter (BM) tons per acre to support the development of a sustainable feedstock supply and enable the provision of a supply of biomass feedstocks sufficient for a growing bio-based industry FY 2011 target: 1.3 Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met This summary of the previous three FY11 quarterly reports includes examination of the baseline scenario for crop residues corn stover, wheat straw, etc}, which was established in the first quarter. In the second quarter, the impact of farmgate price on national production and yield was examined An examination of the sensitivity of particular production parameters was completed in the third quarter. Taken together, these results indicate that average yields of 1 .3 dry tonsiacreiyear are achievable at national production of up to about 104 million dry tonsiyear. Documentation: DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 46 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Biomass and Biorefinery R802) Website: Performance Goal: Biomass Platforms Research and Development Sugars Reduce the modeled ethanol conversion cost, in $fgallon of ethanol (in $200?) FY 2011 target: $0.9?fgallon Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Exceeded The FY11 target was met by NREL through work completed in the Biochemical Process Integration, Biochemical Platform Analysis 81 Pretreatment and Enzymatic Hydrolysis tasks. Data generated by NREL researchers successfully demonstrated commensurate with the FY 201 1 JoulelState of Technology target through core research improvements in pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, and fermentation. Xylose yields in primary pretreatment remained the same as in FY 2009 and 2010, but the overall yield of monomeric xylose was increased to 88% by using advanced and accessory enzymes to convert unreacted xylan and xylooligomers. Improved fermentation performance observed at NREL using Z. mobilis strain from DuPont, which has a higher ethanol tolerance limit than the 8b strain used in the past. At 115% {wfwl total solids loading in fermentation, xylose-to-ethanol yield was 85% of theoretical and arabinose conversion was Fermentation conversions were lower at 20% solids, but the MESP was actually the same due to the effect of solids loading on capital costs. The resultant FY 2011 SOT MESP is $1.671gal ethanol, with a corresponding Biochemical conversion cost of $1.05. 2010 Met Data generated by NREL researchers and other external collaborators successfully demonstrated performance commensurate with the FY 2010 State of Technology MESP target of $1.981gal ($1.331gal conversion cost) (2007$} through core research improvements in pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, and fermentation. The resultant FY 2010 SOT MESP is $1 .94lgal ethanol, with $1 .271gal attributed to conversion costs. 2009 Met "The FY 2009 Joule target of $0.12flb sugar {2007'$} was met through improvements in pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis technology. By using a lower-severity pretreatment in the horizontal reactor, followed by a secondary hydrolysis or oligomer hold step, the total conversion of xylan to xylose was improved to 790%, with a loss to furfural of These. results were obtained in continuous operation. at the. pilot scale. Integrated washed?solids enzymatic hydrolysis experiments performed at the bench scale on the same. pretreated corn. stover generated bythe pilot plant demonstrated a cellulose?to?glucose yield of 88%, as well as. conversion of residual. xylan to xylose using. an advanced enzyme preparation received in FY 2009. When these conversion improvements were input to the updated sugar model, the modeled sugar cost for FY 2009 was $0.1 1970b, clearly meeting the Joule target. 2008 Met Bench scale experiments identified the best available cocktails of commercial enzymes for production of fermentable sugars from corn stover, with batch operations and relatively dilute systems. Modeling based on experimental results verified the cost target of $0.13 per pound of fermentable sugars {in 200? dollars) was met. These results were achieved by a combination of dilute acid pretreatment at and various mixtures of enzymes. 200? Met Integrated tests of dilute acid pretreatment combined with ammonia conditioning followed by enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation with existing organisms provided a modeled cost that met the Joule target of $0.125 per pound sugars. The results of this study are consistent with meeting the performance metrics needed to achieve a sugars cost of $0.064 per pound by 2012. Prices are reported in 2002 dollars. Documentation: November Platforms R802) Biochem Report 8: Summary DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 4? Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Solar Energy Website: Performance Goal: Concentrated Sofar Power (CSP) Reduce the levelized cost of solar electricity from CSP for utility applications FY 2011 target: 14 15 cents per kilowatt?hour Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Molten?Salt Power Tower projected to have 11 ckah under same assumptions {wet?cooling, Phoenix labor, 30% ITC) 2010 Met The modeled cost is $0.13kah even though has improved trough efficiency from 15% to 15.5% during FY2010. This is a result of increased commodity costs particularly nitrate salt, steel, and glass. 2009 Not Met The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (N REL) performed a comprehensive cost analysis of a parabolic trough plant in 2009, which indicated that several cost factors were higher than previously expected. Most notably these included the header piping, heat transfer fluid inventory, the solar field itself, and the thermal storage system. Nitrate salt {the thermal storage media} prices have remained at historic highs, despite the economic slowdown in 2009. This resulted in a best modeled cost that exceeds the DOE Solar program FY 2009 target of 11-13 ?kah by 1.5a: in constant 200? dollars. 2008 Met Levelized cost of energy calculations are based on 2008 cost and performance projections for a 100 MW parabolic trough reference plant. These projections are used as inputs to the Solar Advisor Model, which generates financial and performance output metrics. The original Joule target was based on a 2006 dollar analysis, and the $2006 adjusted LCOE value for the plant is 11 .6 ckah. 200? Met Initial plant performance data provided to NREL indicates that the plant is meeting the performance projections with a projected annual efficiency of 13.2% for the reference plant, which support the cost of energy goals. Improving the efficiencies of CSP trough collectors and receivers will improve the levelized cost of energy, thus improving the potential of Solar power to meet the program's goal of by 2015. Documentation: Contact Joseph.Bressler@ee.dce.gov for results from SAM model DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 48 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Solar Energy Website: Performance Goal: Photovoltaic (PV) Energy Systems Siticon Reduce the levelized cost of solar electricity from photovoltaics for residential applications FY 2011 target: 8 20 cents per kilowatt-hour Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Values represent CY 2010 NREL Residential benchmarks. Significant cost reductions occurred in the price of PV modules, from $1 .QEJW in September 2010, to $1 .22IW in September 201 1. 2010 Met The expert elicitation of current residential photovoltaic system costs, as published in "Modeling the U.S. Rooftop Photovoltaics Market", are approx. $6fW, which is within the range of the of $0.15-0.22tkWh. 0ostif4?823.pdf) 2009 Met Funding from the DOE Solar Program has enabled companies within the Technology Pathway Partnerships program to manufacture proprietary cells, modules, and systems at lower costs. When combined with best practices system installation, a levelized cost of energy at or below $0.16tkWh is achievable. 2008 Met DOE is supporting company-led, early-stage PV projects under the Solar America Initiative's Incubator" funding opportunity. Calisolar, one of the companies selected, has the capability to produce photovoltaic cells at a cost under $1.00 per Watt by using less expensive, metallurgical grade silicon. This process enables certain manufacturers to produce modules at a cost of $1.70 per Watt or less. 200? Met Cross-cutting research focused on semiconductor material, device and processing issues had positive results, with a testing and validation of over 19% conversion efficiency tor a SunPower solar panel. This work supports the President's Solar America Initiative which will reduce the cost of power from PV modules to less than $.10ikWh by 2015. Documentation: Contact Joseph.Bressler@ee.doe.gov tor validated results from SAM model DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 49 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Solar Energy Website: Performance Goal: Photovoltaic Energy Systems Thin?Film Reduce the levelized cost of solar electricity from photovoltaics for commercial applications FY 2011 target: 8 - 20 cents per kilowatt-hour Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Values represent CY 2010 NREL Residential benchmarks. Significant cost reductions occurred in the price of PV modules, from $1 in September 2010, to $1 .22IW in September 201 1. 2010 Met The expert elicitation of current residential photovoltaic system costs, as published in "Modeling the U.S. Rooftop Photovoltaics Market", are approx. which is within the range of the of $0.1 1-0.22kah. 0ostif4?823.pdf) 2009 Met Funding from the DOE Solar Program has enabled companies within the Technology Pathway Partnerships program to manufacture proprietary cells, modules, and systems at lower costs. When combined with best practices system installation, a levelized cost of energy at or below $0.20kah is achievable. 2008 Met DOE provides funding to First Solar and other industry partners through the three-year subcontract ?Development of Robust High Efficiency Thin-Film OdTe PV Modules?. A long-term objective of this relationship is to demonstrate commercial, low-cost, and reproducible PV modules. First Sclar's "Corporate Overview 02 2008" report states a module cost of $1.12r?W. 200? Met The thin film PV module 1 1.8% conversion efficiency was independently verified by NREL staff at the Outdoor Test Facilities in Golden, CO. Improving the efficiencies of PV module technology will improve the levelized cost of energy, thus improving the potential of Solar power to meet the program?s goal of by 2015. Documentation: Contact for validated results from SAM model. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 50 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Solar Energy Website: Performance Goal: Solar Market Integration Fteduce market barriers and support domestic market growth to enable 800 megawattd of solar installations in the United States Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded The Solar Energy Technologies Program assumed the CY 03 2011 installations were megawatts higher than CY Q2 2011 (391.3} based on internal market reporting, giving an installation total, from October 2010 - Sept. 201 1 of ~1 .SGW. The FY 2011 Target number was reported for "Total grid-connected P?v' capacity, cumulative", not "per year". Therefore, assuming the above numbers, in conjunction with the cumulative installed capacity reported by GTMISEIA in CY C12 2011 of 2.6763GW, we arrive at a total installed capacity in the United States of ~3.1 gigawatts 2010 Not Met -- Documentation: U.S. Solar Market Insight, 2nd Quarter 2011. GTMISEIA. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 5] Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Solar Energy Website: Performance Goal: Solar Systems integration Support achieving the vision goal of 15% of electricity demand from solar energy technologies by 2030 by providing enabling technologies for annual solar energy penetration into two types of distribution feeder circuits Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met The Solar program is currently working with many distributed systems that have penetrations higher than specifically our work with several awardees on the SEGIS and High Penetration Solar Deployment projects has produced results that meet or exceed this performance target. 2010 lvlet Five awardees came out of Phase II. Only 4 of these were qualified to enter into Phase Documentation: While we are working with many distributed systems that have penetrations higher than our work with PV Powered (now Advanced Energy) has an installation of PV on a feeder at this level through SEGIS as well as our work with NREL and Southern California Edison as part of our High Penetration Solar Deployment project. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 52 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Wind Energy Website: Performance Goal: Wind Distributed Wind Technology (D WT) Deploy new units of distributed wind turbines in the market FY 2011 target: 5,369 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Not Met The goal is missed by just over 2,200 units and was impacted by the economic recession and the expiration of state policies that had strongly encouraged small wind in prior years U.S. market barriers such as zoningipermitting, increasing demand charges by utilities, hesitancy of public power entities to deviate for guidance, and stable policy continue to slow potential growth. Average size is increasing to 8.4 kW {2010) vs. 4.4 kW (2007'), which is another explanation for the reduced overall number of units deployed (more power from fewer units}. This goal will be retired for FY 2013, since number of units is not best indicator of total impact of distributed wind deployment. 2010 Met A total of 4,520 distributed wind turbines (1kW up to 1 MW rated power) were deployed in 2010 according to the report, Small Wind Turbine Global Market Study 2009." This exceeds the 2000 goal by 030 units - 130 units beyond the 2010 incremental deployment goal of 800 units. 2009 Met A total of 4,321 distributed wind turbines {1kW up to 1 MW rated power) were deployed in 2009 according to the report, Small Wind Turbine Global Market Study 2009." 2008 Met A total of 3,376 distributed wind turbines were deployed, exceeding the target of 500 new units deployed above the 2,400 unit baseline. 200? Met The work conducted in FY 2007' for Distributed Wind Technology which reached a cost of electricity of 53.9-10.7 centsikWh, represented the completion of a 5 year effort to bring down the cost of electricity for residential and commercial size turbines based on cost of electricity. This will support the goal of expanding the market for distributed wind technologies five-fold from where it existed in 200?. Documentation: NREL, 2011 . Draft memorandum FY2011 Distributed Wind Technology Annual Target." With data from AWEA 2010 Small Wind Market Report DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 53 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Wind Energy Website: Performance Goal: Wind Low Wind Speed Technology WST) Reduce the modeled land?based wind cost of energy, in cents per kWh, in Class 4 wind speed areas (7.25 ms mean wind speed at 50m above ground} from a 2009 baseline of 8.0 centskah {cents per kWh) FY 2011 target: 7.9 Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met The modeled land-based turbine rotor diameter was increased from meters to 82.5 meters to reflect the fact that rotor diameters in turbines installed 2010 were larger. This results in greater energy productionfhigher capacity factor, which drives down cost of energy. The cost impact of larger rotors is about 0.5 The assumptions on financing costs were also changed, largely as a result of market factors outside the influence of DOE research. 2010 Not Met This was a 5 year target that was changed in the fall of 2009. The supporting information from related activities is not of high enough quality to provide a full modeling run during FY 2010. 2009 Not Met "As in previous years, the LWST Project COE reduction was quantified using the Annual Turbine Technology Update methodology. The results show that the LWST Project achieved a land-based COE of 4.02 cents $2002) as a result of FY 2009 LWST Project activities. With the FY 2009 target ATTU land-based COE being 3.9 the achieved ATTU COE falls short of the current year land-based target by 0.12 While this represents a clear shortfall for the current fiscal year, the Wind Energy Program will implement an action plan to achieve the FY 2010 targets. Although LWST activities during FY 2009 made significant progress toward the program goal of offshore COE reduction, directly quantifiable data was not available to support verification of the offshore target. 2008 Not Met Modeled cost of wind power in land-based IClass 4 areas equaled 4.05 cents per kWh. Improved data incorporating experience gained in prototype testing led to higher-than-expected COE and the missed target. Modeled cost of wind power in shallow offshore Class 6 areas equaled 9.2 cents per kWh, meeting the target level. 2007 Met DOE activities resulted in a wind cost of energy calculation of 3.8 cents, well ahead of the 4.1 cent target. The offshore wind targets for shallow {9.25 centsi?ltWh) and transitional wind {11.93 centsi?kWh}, which were met, are due to benefits realized from synergies with land-based technologies. and technical studies undertaken under the Low Wind Speed and Supporting Research and Testing key activities have direct impact on the cost and performance of components, which in term directly lead to reduced cost of energy of wind systems for both land-based and offshore applications- Documentation: NREL, 2011. FY11 Budget Analysis Assumptions Memo (draft) and Tegen, Lantz, Maples, Smith, Schwabe, Hand, M. {forthcoming}. 2010 Cost of Wind Energy Review. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 54 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Wind Energy Website: Performance Goal: I?Wnd Technology Application Number of states with at least 1000 megawatts of wind energy installed FY 2011 target: 14 Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met By FY11 end, 14 states had wind, with TX having 240,000 MW installed. The states with are2010 Not Met The goal of 7 states with 1,000 MW installed wind capacity has been exceeded by 7 states for a total of 14 states. However, there are currently only 26 states [4 short of the 30 state goal) with at least 100 MW of installed wind capacity. The 1,000 MW state annual goals have been accelerated for FY 201 1 and beyond. The 100 MW state goal is set to retire in FY 2012 2009 Not Met The goal of 4 states with 1,000 MW installed wind capacity has been exceeded by 5 states. However, there are currently only 26 states [1 short oi the 2? state go} with at least 100 MW of installed wind capacity 2008 Met 23 states now exceed 100 MW of installed wind power capacity. Wind Powering America has provided extensive support to several states that achieved the 100 MW level in 2008. 200? Not Met The Wind Program's Technology Acceptance activities to help prime the market to accept wind in increasing amounts supported 16 States installing at least 100 MW of wind by the end of FY 2007? [September 2007}. However, with the rush to install new wind turbines, this target was actually exceeded by Calendar Year 2007 (December 200?}. The activities help stakeholders and officials within States understand wind energy technologies and how wind can be integrated into their state energy systems will in turn reduce institutional and regulatory barriers, helping wind to contribute in a competitive wholesale electric market. Documentation: See AWEA 2nd Quarter 2011 report for validated results: 201 1-Public-Market-Report.pd1 DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 55 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Wind Energy Website: Performance Goal: Wind Technology Wind Reduce the modeled shallow water cost of energy, in cents per kWh, in Class 6 wind speed areas (9.25 ms mean wind speed at 50m above ground} from a 2009 baseline of 26.9 centskah FY 2011 target: 26.8 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Offshore turbines still are not installed in the United States, so this is a modeled cost of energy (CUE) based on data from proposed U.S. projects and existing European projects. Due to changes in economic conditions, the cost of project financing decreased in FY 201 1 {cheaper debt} relative to FY 2010. The modeled turbine specifications did not change, but various cost elements were update to reflect new and better information. Documentation: NREL, 2011. FY11 Budget Analysis Assumptions lvlemo {draft} and Tegen, Lantz, Maples, Smith, Schwabe, Hand, M. {forthcoming}. 2010 Cost of Wind Energy Review. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 56 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Geothermal Technologies Website: Performance Goal: Geothermal Enhanced Geothermal Systems Increase average total flow rate per production well in kilogramsfsecond for EGS field site12 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 the Program conducted activities at multiple EGS field sites that made progress toward meeting this measure. At one particular site, a stimulation plan was carried out. This plan included an initial shear stimulation phase, followed by a controlled hydrofac phase with step-wise increase in injection pressures. Upon completion of these phases, the stimulation plan resulted in significant injectivity and injection flow rate increases. Despite these successes, the increase in flow rate per production well was not fully demonstrated. While not quantitatively validated, there are good indications that the measure could be met: 1) Tracers. introduced. at the. injection well have been. detected and quantified at the production well, demonstrating well conductivity. Fulldemonstration {and quantification) of enhanced. productivity is. possible when all wells are in full operation. 2) Theoretically,.for a well managed. geothermal field, production rates and injection rates be must equal. or at least proportionate. More fluid cannot be. produced than. can be injected. back into the subsurface. The. Program has. demonstrated an increase in injection flow rate, which means the reservoir will accommodate additional water intake. This increased water intake means more fluid can be produced. Moving forward, the Program will employ techniques in FY 2012 to quantify the production flow rate increase as of the stimulation technologies and plans used in FY 2011. Documentation: Desert Peak EGS Report from the FY 2011 Program Peer Fteview DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 5? Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Water Power Website: Performance Goal: Water Generation and Flow Data Test marine and hydrokinetic devices and components to determine baseline cost, performance, and reliability Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met 2 MHK Devices (Free Flow Power (FFP) and Columbia Power Technologies (CPTH are deployed and being tested in open water. FFP deployed and initiated testing of a 40 kW in?stream turbine in the Mississippi Ftiver in June 2011. CPT deployed and initiated testing on a wave energy converter in Puget Sound, WA, in March 2011. 2010 Met The final draft of the National Hydropower Asset Assessment Project, which presents a new assessment of hydropower assets and a new integrated database constructed from available Federal and non-Federal sources to describe: (1) the current state of the hydropower infrastructure in the US. (age, type, ownership, etc}, (2) generation patterns from these assets, and hydrologic conditions. The database was designed to integrate hydrology and civil works information by river basin, for a period of at least the last 10 years. The database will be used to study patterns in generation variability, their causes, plus opportunities for upgrading hydropower facilities to stabilize and increase generation. Documentation: For both FFP and CPT, test data is being used internally as input to DOE's reference model work and to the National Labs for analysis. FFP and CPT deployment and testing activities are documented in quarterly project reports to DOE. Steve Chalk presented at the RETECH 2011 conference in DC [hosted by on the EE RE Renewable Energy Programs, which included the deployments of these 2 technologies. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 58 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Water Power Website: Performance Goal: Water Power Complete feasibility studies at facilities to identify opportunities for efficiency and capacity upgrades, powering existing non?powered dams, and adding new pumped storage hydropower capacity. FY 2011 target: 10 Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Not Met This Project, through which the feasibility studies were to be completed, has been substantially rescoped to more effectively incorporate the stated needs of industry and to significantly reduce costs through an improved implementation and procurement strategy. These project changes, and a delay in the project timeline, will require a formal revision to this measure. As background, the HAP project was initiated in 2010, being managed under the auspices of ORNL. After a broad ORNL solicitation brought forth limited and unresponsive proposals in 2010, the Program took action to re- scope the Project to better meet the needs of industry in early 2011, leading to a significant delay in the implementation of the assessments (formerly referred to as "feasibility studies? as is stated in this measure). At the close of FY1 1, 2 "test case? assessments have been performed. As a result of the new HAP strategy, the Program will complete 40 assessments in FY 12, and a total of 7'5 assessments through FY 2013, putting us back on schedule to meet our FY 12 and FY 13 commitments. This improved strategy allows the Power Program to successfully meet the 2012 and 2013 performance targets while more effectively assessing the potential and technology needs to increase generation at existing hydroelectric facilities. 2010 Met No Comments 2009 Met The Program has completed a draft version of its Multi-Year Program Plan for 2009-2012. The Program drafted the MYPP using several resources including knowledge gained through interaction with National Laboratories, industry, and other key stakeholders. The document lays out the Program's long-term strategic technology development and market acceleration goals for both marine and hydrokinetic technologies and conventional hydropower. The Program has developed strategic pathways. and technical approaches. to reach these goals and overcome technical and market barriers. The MYPP allows the Program to reassess its strategy as new. information becomes available, the results of. projects are. analyzed, and as the market develops for these technologies. Documentation: Demonstration. Assessments Reports from USACE Center Hill and Duke Rhodiss Hydropower Plants have been submitted by Assessment Team. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 59 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Vehicle Technologies Website: Performance Goal: Advanced Combustion Engine Research and Deveiopment Collect and analyze data from 15 million miles of on?road plug?in electric drive vehicles to determine impact on electricity grid and consumer charging behavior FY 2011 target: 15 million Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Exceeded Testing includes: 430 representing 14 PHEV models and 5M test miles; 150 EREVs, representing 1 EREV model and 400k test miles; 50 HEVs, representing 19 HEV models and 6M test miles; 4,000 BE?v's, representing 4? BEV models and 10M test miles; and 3,000 EVSEs. 2010 Met In September, the Oak Ridge National Lab completed testing on a General Motors 1.9-L diesel engine equipped with an organic Rankine cycle. In the tests the engine demonstrated a 45.0 per cent brake thermal efficiency. The demonstration is the final milestone in the path to demonstrating the 2010 DOE FreedomCAR objectives of 45% BTE with Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions for light-duty engines. The work will be fully documented in annual report this fall. 2009 Met The Oak Ridge National Lab demonstrated an engine efficiency of 44.1% using lab data and modeling. An organic Rankine cycle (ORG) was used to generate more than 2.9 kW of net electrical power from the exhaust heat of a General Motors 1.9-L diesel engine. The additional power raised the effective efficiency of the engine from 42.3% brake thermal efficiency (BTE) to a combined BTE of 44.1%. 2008 Met The Oak Ridge National Laboratory has demonstrated in the laboratory a brake thermal efficiency of 43% on a General Motors 1.9-L diesel engine [an interim milestone to demonstrating the 2010 objective of 45% BTE with Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions for light-duty engines}. Advanced efficiency technologies investigated in FY 2008 include thermal energy recovery, electrification of auxiliary components, lubricants, and fuel properties. A progress review of heavy- duty engine was completed and preparation for a future down-select from 4 to 2 contracts was made. 200? Met The program has been making steady, incremental progress on engine efficiency. In FY 200?r the efficiency of developmental engines improved from 41% to 42%. This achievement is an interim milestone in the path for achieving and demonstrating the 2010 DOE FreedomCAR goals of 45% combustion efficiency with Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions in light- duty engines. Compared to the FY 2002 baseline of 30%. efficient gasoline engines, this will allow passenger vehicles to. use clean diesel engines that offer a 50%. improvement in fuel economy. while simultaneously meeting stringent EPA emissions requirements. for 201 0. Documentation: Reports. and fact sheets at: http?avtinlgov DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 60 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Vehicle Technologies Website: Performance Goal: Hybrid and Electric Propulsionx?Advanceo' Power Electronics and Electric Motors R840 Reduce the cost of electric?drive technologies. Demonstrate through data, simulation and modeling an inverterfmotor, when combined, of 1.1 kilowatts per kilogram, 2.7 kilowatts per liter, at a cost of $18 per kilowatt peak Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met The O4 Target Objective was met by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in September 201 1. Using test data, simulation, and modeling it was determined that using a number of advances in inverter and motor technology could yield a traction drive system with the following characteristics: 1.1 kW per kilogram, kW per liter, at a cost of $18 per kW peak. The technology advances include the novel flux coupling motor, the current source inverter integration of the two to eliminate the inductor in the CSI, and use of advanced power module packages. 2010 Met Based upon test data gathered by General Motors from prototype inverter and motor units, the traction drive parameters of 1.1 kakg and 2.6 kaL have been attained for a coolant temperature of Using vendor quotes obtained by General Motors and standard automotive costing practices, the cost target of $1 kaW has been achieved. This marks the completion of the year and will be documented in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORN Status report for September 2010. 2009 Met Design analysis by Oak Ridge National Lab of the ?ux coupling non-PM motor when combined with inverter analysis {02 Joule milestone), demonstrated an inverterlmotor projected cost (modeled) of $1 9ka peak at the design conditions. 2008 Met The Oak Ridge National Laboratory has demonstrated in the laboratory a current source inverter tor use in traction drive applications with an inherent boost capability of 3.45X, a reduction of motor voltage harmonic distortion ot 90% and motor bearing leakage current by 90%, and a reduction in capacitor requirements from 2000uF to 195uF.. 200? Met Test results for the new motor built in 2007 showed 1 .3 kakg, 3.9 kaL, and a cost of $9ka. This milestone is a stepping stone to the 2010 FreedomCAR and 2010 hybrid electric systems progress goal of achieving an Electric Propulsion System with a 15 year lite capable of delivering at least 55 kW for 18 seconds and 30 kW continuous at a systems cost of $12lkW peak. That level of performance and cost will enable broad penetration of hybrid technologies into the automotive market, resulting in significant improvements in fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions. Documentation: The completion of the PMM 4th quarter milestone and annual performance measures will be documented in the September 2011 ORNL status report to DOE. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 6} Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Vehicle Technologies Website: Performance Goal: Hybrid Electric Systems Energy Storage) Reduce the cost of energy storage for PH E?v's to $700 per kilowatt?hour based on modeling assuming high?volume (100,000 units) production Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Exceeded The current cost estimates from battery developers {Johnson Controls, A123Systems, and Compact PowertLG Chem) for a PHEV average $651 per kilowatthour of useable energy, not including warranty costs and profit, which would be negotiated between the battery company and their customer for a specific vehicle application. This battery cost projection is derived by the manufacturer using battery manufacturing cost model and is based on a production volume of at least 100,000 batteries per year, which represents full utilization of a small battery production plant. The total battery cost is derived by the developer for specific battery cell and module designs that meet DOEIUSABC system performance targets. 2010 Met The modeled production cost of a high-power, 25-kW passenger vehicle lithium-ion battery has been reduced to less than $500. The cost of the 25-kW lithium-ion battery depends on the battery chemistry used and the useable energy required. Manganese spinel and lithium iron phosphate positive electrodes offer the lowest battery costs for high-power hybrid electric vehicles because of proven high-rate capability and lower materials cost. The modeled cost of a 25-kW battery (with a useable energy of 150-Wh} using LMO positive and graphite negative electrodes is $403 per pack at a production rate of 500,000 packs per year. 2009. Not Met Cost estimates from current DOEFUSABC battery developers {Johnson Controls, A1238ystems, and Compact PowerfLG Chem} for a 25 kilowatt battery vary from $821 to $808, excluding life warranty costs and profit. The battery cost projection was derived by each manufacturer using USABC's battery manufacturing cost model and production volumes of 100,000 to 175,000 batteries per year, which represents full utilization of a small battery production plant. The estimates are exclusive of cost benefits associated with the recently awarded battery manufacturing plants funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Johnson Controls (JCS) and Compact Power contracts have been completed. JCS will commercialize the lithium ion technology developed with DOE's support in 2009 and will likely be the first entry of lithium ion batteries into a production hybrid vehicle. The A1238ystems high power battery contract will be completed in March 2010 and further cost reductions of their battery system are expected. 2008 Met The projected cost for a 25 kilowatt battery is $621 for the Hybrid Electric Vehicle battery that was developed in the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium battery development contract. This is expected to be the first entry of lithium ion batteries into a production vehicle. 200? Met activity in FY 200? reduced the projected cost of a 25 kW lithium?ion battery pack from $?50 at the end of FY 2006 to $700 at the end of FY 2007. This accomplishment is an interim milestone in the path for achieving and demonstrating the 2010 DOE FreedomCAR goal of a $500, 25 kilowatt lithium ion battery for power assist hybrid applications. Reducing battery costs to that level will enable broad penetration of hybrid technologies into the automotive market, resulting in significant improvements in fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions. Documentation: Proprietary details of the designs and cost models are presented at Quarterly Progress Reviews. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 62 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Vehicle Technologies Website: Performance Goal: Lightweight Maferiais Techhoiogy Validate (to within 10% uncertainty) the cost?effective reduction of the weight of passenger vehicle body and chassis systems by 50% with safety, performance, and recyclability comparable to 2002 vehicles Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met The baseline for the cost model has been developed for the multi?material vehicle. A detailed cost model prepared by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORN provides the baseline for weight reduction analyses in FY2012 - 2014. This model lays the foundation upon which the subsequent analyses will be compared for validation. Results are documented in a presentation for the VTP Merit Review prepared by the ORNL (May 2011}. A summary of the report will be included in the Materials Technology annual report. 2010 Met A detailed cost model prepared by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory indicates that the 50% weight reduction in the body and chassis was achieved. The weight reduction is cost effective at gasoline prices above $3igallon; with carbon fiber and Mg ingot 2009 Met A detailed cost model prepared by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory indicates that the 40% weight reduction in the body and chassis is achievable, but not cost-effective on a life-cycle basis at $1.90 per gallon of fuel. It would be cost effective at prices above $4igallon. 2008 Met The weight reduction and cost effectiveness were assessed based on the use of lightweight material options for body and chassis components under two plausible mid-size vehicle scenarios achieving reductions of Each scenario focused on a specific lightweight material option, i.e. aluminum or glass-fiber-reinforced polymer-matrix composites The focus was on under-body systems, but additional chassis components were also selected for the glass- scenario. 200? Met The Future Generation Passenger Compartment developed innovative designs for the components of a passenger compartment (seats, paneling, dashboard, passive safety systems, etc), taking advantage of new materials such as high-strength steel and carbon-fiber wherever possible, that could reduce the weight of a passenger compartment by as much as 30%. When combined with the previously-developed technologies to reduce weight in other areas of a car, the 200? passenger-compartment work will allow the weight of a body and chassis system as a whole to be reduced by at least 10%. which is an interim step toward achieving the FreedomCAR 2010 progress goal of simultaneous attainment of a 50% reduction in the weight of vehicle structures and affordability, and the use of recyclableirenewable materials. Documentation: A draft report was provided to DOE and a final report will be published in the Material Technology annual report DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 63 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Vehicle Technologies Website: Performance Goal: Vehicies Lightweight Maieriais Technoiogy Demonstrate through modeling and laboratory data an 8% energy conversion efficiency from engine waste heat to electricity for a thermoelectric device Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Using laboratory results for the thermoelectric material and extrapolating to a larger difference in temperature, a figure of merit of 2T: .47 can be obtained. As shown on slide 17 of the GM presentation, this is equal to 8% efficiency. Documentation: GM presentation at the 201 DEER Conference validating 2T: can be obtained. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 64 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Vehicle Technologies Website: Performance Goal: Vehicles Outreach, Deployment Analysis Reduce the use of petroleum through the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructure FY 2011 target: 57'0 million gallons per year Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Exceeded 600 million - Not a final number; data will be evaluated and published at the end of the FY 2012 year to allow time for data quality assurance and final reporting for the calendar year that is due in March 2012. Documentation: Clean Cities Annual Metrics Report DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 65 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Building Technologies Website: Performance Goal: Buiidings Appliance Standards Complete proposals (includes unique product inclusions in NOPRS and Final Rules) to update appliance standards and test procedures and publish in the Federal Register (proposalsifinal rules) FY 2011 target: 14MB Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Exceeded Issued 26 unique product proposals and 16 unique product final rules for standards and test procedures 2010 Met Proposals for 1? Products: 1) Battery Chargers, 2) External Power Supplies, 3) Commercial Clothes Washers, 4) Small Motors, 5) Res. Water Heaters, 6) Direct Heating Equipment, 7} Pool Heaters, 8)WaIk-In Coolers and Freezers, 9) Fluorescent Ballasts, 10) Clothes Dryers, 11) Room Air Conditioners, 12) Res. Refrigerators, 13) Furnaces, 14) Boilers, 15) Central Air Conditioners, 16) HID lamps, Microwave Ovens. Final Rules for 10: 1) Commercial Clothes Washers, 2) Small Motors, 3) Metal Halide Ballasts, 4) Res. Water Heaters, 5) Heating Products, 6) Pool Heaters, HID Lamps (determination, 8) Non-Class A External Power Supplies (determination), 9) Televisions (repeal), 10) Microwave Ovens (repeal) 2009 Met "Completed energy conservation standard final rules for 9 products not including codification of prescribed standards: packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps commercial refrigeration equipment gas and electric ranges and ovens microwave ovens General Service Fluorescent lamps (5), Incandescent Reflector Lamps (6), Very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment (T), packaged boilers (8), and refrigerated beverage vending machines Test procedure. final. rules. were published for. battery chargers and external power supplies (standby. mode), small. electric motors, and General Service Fluorescent, Incandescent Reflector, and General Service Incandescent Lamps. Proposals were completed. for 15 products." 2008 Met DOE. completed 17 proposals. to update appliance standards and test procedures, including the final rules for Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners. and Heat Pumps and Furnaces and Boilers. 2007 Not Met DOE. issued. four final rules in FY. 2007'. which. included standards required. for support of EPACT 2005. (including. ceiling fan light kits, test procedure for central air conditioners, and test procedures. for. consumer products and certain commercial and industrial. equipment). as well as the. Final Rule for distribution transformers. These. rulemaking activities fulfill the schedule the. Department laid out to clear the backlog of delayed standards actions while simultaneously implementing the new requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The furnace and boiler rule was published in November 2007'. Documentation: Published in the Federal Register DOE FY 20} 1 Armani Performance Report? 66 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Building Technologies Website: Performance Goal: Buiidings Commercial Buildings Complete Retrofit and New Commercial Buildings Case Studies {that achieve at least 30 and 50% increase, respectively, in energy efficiency relative to the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 benchmark} with five year or less payback. Annual targets are for an individual year, not cumulative {retrofit case studyinew commercial case study] FY 2011 target: 5i5 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded 5 Retrofit and 6 New Commercial Buildings Case Studies completed. 2010 lvlet A total of four technology packages as Technical Support Documents were completed by NREL and PNNL. They were 50% savings for Large Office 50% savings for Large Hospital 50% savings for Small Office (PNNL), and 50% savings for Quick Service Restaurant 2009 Met Technical Support Documents published with energy savings of more than 50% for four commercial building types: general merchandise (retail), grocery stores, highway lodging, and medium offices. 2008 lvlet Commercial Buildings completed 4 design technology packages -- 2 of which provided at least 30% energy savings {highway lodging, warehouse). The other 2 provide energy savings of at least 50% (grocery stores and medium-box retail}. 200? lvlet This target was met by completing the analysis and documentation of the pathways and recommendations for achieving 30% energy savings through sets of technology design packages for K-12 schools in various US. climates. This supports progress towards the 2025 goal of commercial buildings that are 60 to 70% more energy efficient. Documentation: Case Studies availlable upon request -- George.Tzortzis@ee.doe.gov DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 6? Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Building Technologies Website: Performance Goal: Buiidings Residentiai Buildings Complete an energy savings measures package for new residential buildings at net zero financed cost to the homeowner for one major climate region Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded The Building America Program completed two reports. One report is for new home construction measures at 20% and 30% savings in over 30 locations across five major climate zones. The second report is for existing homes measures at 15% and 20% energy savings in over 30 locations across five climate zones. These reports will serve as key reference points to guide ongoing research aimed at reducing first costs and increasing energy savings. 2010 Met This milestone has been successfully completed. Two design technology packages were developed for the hot humid climate region and the mixed humid climate region. 2009 Met The 2009 Residential Milestone has been successfully completed. Design technology packages that achieve 40% savings relative to the BA benchmark at zero net cost to homeowners were completed for one climate (cold climate). 2008 Exceeded The Residential Buildings research report for the 40% energy savings level in the Marine Climate and five detailed case study reports have been completed. The report documents that ten homes have been cost effectively built in five communities to meet the Buildilng Technologies Program success criteria. 200? Met Multiple case studies demonstrating successful achievement of 30% and 40% savings relative to the Building America research benchmark have been completed for the Hot humid and HotiMixed Humid climate regions {respectively}. Achievement of this target moves the program closer to the program goal of homes that use net zero energy by 2020. Documentation: Email George.Tzortzis@ee.doe.gov for additional information DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 68 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Building Technologies Website: Performance Goal: Buildings Solid State Lighting Increase efficacy (measured in lumens per Watt of ?while light? SSL in a lab device (Imiw) FY 2011 target: 123 ImiW Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded In September, Philips Lumileds Lighting Company successfully fabricated a prototype packaged, bright-white LED that delivers 149 lumeniWatt, exceeding the FY1 1 PMM milestone of 142 lumeniWatt. The package was based off the Rebel ES platform. The prototype LED package produces about 600 lumens with a correlated color temperature of 391 1 K, and a color rendering index of 65. 2010 Met Recent market released LUXEON Rebel LED by Philips Lumileds with a single die and phosphor conversion shows high performance. The top bin LED has following characteristics: up to 139 ImiW and 138 Im at 350 mi??t with a forward voltage of the device is 2.83 V. The CCT is 5385 K. The color coordinates are: 0.2015 and 0.4877. The CRI of the device is 70. The performance gain partially results from chip level electrical injection efficiency improvement {Vt reduction} and optical extraction efficiency improvement which were funded by DOE Great White. 2009 Met In September, Cree successfully fabricated a prototype cool white LED that delivers 1 17' ImiW at 350mA, exceeding FY 2009 Joule milestone of 110 Imiw. This achievement builds on the Cree EZBright? LED chip platform, developed in part with prior funding support from DOE. Based on a 1 millimeter-square chip, the new prototype LED produces white light with a correlated color temperature of 6,450 and a color rendering index of 69.. 2008 Met Cree successfully created a prototype cool white light-emitting diode that delivers 107 lumen per Watt {lmiW} at 350mA. Based on a 1 millimeter-square chip, the new prototype LED produces white light with a correlated color temperature (CCT) of 5500K and a color rendering index of 7'3. Integration of four of these prototype LEDs can produce luminous flux of more than 450 lumens. 2007 Met Improvements in materials, circuitry, and heat transfer incorporated in a single package of higher efficacy raised the bar for light-emitting diode (LED) performance (a CREE, Inc. new cool white multi-chip LED array prototype demonstrated a luminous efficacy of 95 ImiW}. By improving the performance of solid state lighting, the program moves closer to the goal of acheiving net zero energy use in homes by 2020 and in commercial buildings by 2025. Documentation: Contact George.Tzortzis@ee.doe.gov for additional information. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 69 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Industrial Technologies Website: Performance Goal: industry Emerging Technologies Commercialize two new industrial technologies in partnership with the most energy?intensive industries that improve energy efficiency of an industrial process or product by at least 10% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met One iron?making technology (Mesabi Nugget ka3 Process) was commercialized with energy efficiency improvement meeting exceeding the 10 percent goal. 2010 Met ITP?sponsored technology resulted in a commercial success SeaMicro Inc. delivered its first commercial server in 2010 with a potential of 75% reduction in power use per unit of computation relative to a conventional server. 2009 Met A total of three new technologies were reported as commercialized. 2008 Met Three technologies were commercialized in partnership with industry, they included: Plastics or Fibers from Bio?Based Polymers; a technology in the Chemicals industry, Improved Methods for the Production of Polyurethane Foam; and Process for Converting Waste Glass Fiber into a Concrete Additive. Each technology resulted in substantial energy savings ranging from 20% to over 90 percent. 200? Met A total of three new technologies were reported as commercialized including the Dilute Oxygen Combustion technology, the Cromer Cycle Air Conditioner technology, and the Lower-pH Copper Flotation Reagent System. These commercialized efficiency technologies support the goal of an 14.9% reduction in industrial energy intensity by 2015 {baseline 2002}. Documentation: Source of data: Presentation by H. Tanaka of Kobe Steel, Ltd., 25 October 200?, Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, 4th Steel Workshop, Wollongong, Australia, "New Ironmaking Process for CO2 Reduction" DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 70 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Industrial Technologies Website: Performance Goal: Industry Unique Energy?Intensive Industrial Plants Achieve an estimated 100 trillion Btu energy savings from applying technologies Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded A total of 2,456 unique energy?intensive plants in the US were impacted by program in FY 2011. This exceeds the goal of 600 plants annually. We have shown a total of 443 TBtu of persistent energy savings in FY201 1. This has exceeded the goal of 100 TBtu annually. 2010 Met A total of 2,197 unique energy?intensive plants in the US were impacted by program in FY 2010. This exceeds the goal of 600 plants. We have shown a total of 383 TBtu per year of persistent energy savings in FY2010. This has exceeded the yearly goal of 100 TEl-tu per year. 2009 Met An additional 525 unique energy-intensive plants in the US applied EERE technologies and services in the fourth quarter of FY 2009. The program met and exceeded its .JOU LE target primarily due to activities under the Save Energy Now and Industrial Assessment Centers 2008 Met 1 ,40? unique plants newly using the Department energy technologies and services were able to reduce energy intensity in their plants. Estimated savings from adoption ot more efficient technologies and practices are 106 trilion Btus. 200? Met More than 1380 unique energy intensive uniques plants in US applied EERE technologies and services in FYUF, saving an estimate 125 trillion Btus. This supports the goal of an 14.9% reduction in industrial energy intensity by 2015 {baseline 2002}. Documentation: Contact Harvey.Wong@ee.doe.gov for additional information DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 7} Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Federal Energy Management Website: .eere.energy.govifempf Performance Goal: Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) Contract Awards Save 50 trillion lifecycle Btu in federal facility energy use through alternative financing or technical assistance activities Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Not Met FY 2010 was an exceptional year for ESPCs with the expiration of one ESPC contract. FY 2011 was a rebuilding year for the ESPC pipeline. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2011 eases the process for E800 selection, creating fertile ground for growing the ESPC program and increasing the number of federal projects in the pipeline. 2010 lvlet lv'let 2009 Met The cumulative FY 2009 lifecycle energy savings based on FEl?le activities were 110.2 trillion Btu, which exceed the FY 2009 goal of 34.4 trillion Btu. Energy savings in the first quarter were 17 trillion Btu, 0.8 trillion Btu in the second quarter, 98.8 trillion Btu in the third quarter, and 9.0 trillion Btu in the fourth quarter. Contributing to the total energy savings over FY 2009 were 14 ESPC awards, fifteen UESC awards, three PPA awards, REC purchases in two quarters, and seven projects involving technical assistance. The ESPC at DOE's Savannah River Site was the single largest contributor (72.8 trillion Btu} to the total FY 2009 energy savings. 2008 lvlet Activities yielded 49.2 trillion cumulative lifecycle Btu savings through the end of the year which should result in about a percent annual reduction in energy intensity. 200? lvlet ESPG and UESC contract awards, technical assistance, and DOE retrofits resulted in 33.2 trillion Btu savings exceeding the target. This will help Federal agencies to reduce the energy intensity of their operations, increase the use of renewable energy, accelerate the protection and improvement of the environment, and increase our nation's energy security as required by EPACT 2005 and Executive Order 13423. Documentation: Contact Hayes.Jones@ee.doe.gov for additional information DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 72 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: State Energy Program Website: Performance Goal: State Energy Program Achieve an average annual energy savings from DOE funded projects FY 2011 target: 3.5 trillion Btu Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Exceeded Exceeded annual target by 0.1 7? trillion Btu in 2011. 2010 lvlet Expenditure of FY 2010 SEP allocation should result in a savings of 10.95 trillion source BTUs an estimated million in annual energy cost savings} evaluates performance in FY 2002. using an 11:11 (non? federal:federal} leverage ratio. More appropriate leverage ratio for FY 2010 is 2:1 . 2009 lvlet Met quarterly and annual energy savings targets, based on applying OBNL impacts assessment methodology to STARS costing totals 2008 lvlet Total Btu savings for year are 1 1.35 trillion source Btu {an estimated $60-70 million in annual energy cost savings). 200? Met The State Energy Program met its target, achieving an annual energy savings of 12.364 trillion source Btus ($78 million in annual energy cost savings} with DOE funds. The energy saving target was established and achieved using a methodology developed by the OBNL in Estimating Energy and Cost Savings and Emissions Reductions for the State Energy Program Based on Enumeration Indicators Data (January 2003}. Documentation: 2005 ORNL Study (adjusted for inflation} available by contacting Joseph.Bressler@ee.doe.gov DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 73 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program: Weatherization Website: .eere.energv.qoviwip_f Performance Goal: Weatherization Assistance Program Weatherize homes using DOE funds Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded 348,040 homes weatherized {estimated based on 11 months of actual data). Note: includes homes weatherized with Recovery Act funds in 2011 . 2010 Met Met: FY10 production to date: 24,492 04 FY10 production to date: 84,965 2009 Not Met 95,821 were reported as weatherized to date. States have until December to report final numbers. We expect to exceed target. 2008 Met Total of units weatherized is 94,487?. 2007 Met The Weatherization Assistance Program supported the deployment of cost-effective energy efficiency improvements to low-income households by weatherizing 1011667 homes in FY 2007. Through helping low-income citizens reduce their energy bills by permanently increasing the energy efficiency of their homes. DOE provides funding to states, which manage the day-to-day operations of the program. Low-income families receive services from a network of about am local weatherization providers. Documentation: 2005 ORNL Study {adjusted for inflation} available by contacting Joseph.Bressler@ee.doe.gov DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 74 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Program: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Website: Performance Goal: Energy Storage Program Identify mechanism of carbon addition in lead acid battery and establish storage baseline cost of $2,500 per kilowatt for grid?scale application Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met A mechanism of carbon addition in lead acid battery was identified; complete batteries with prepared anodes were built and underwent cycling tests, followed by disassembly and mechanistic analysis which established a baseline for grid? scale application. 2010 Not Met Data not available. Alternate milestone was also pursued and met. All project goals were achieved and all milestones were met on schedule. The FY10 target of showing that the Ultrabattery technology was capable of achieving four times the cycle-life of conventional VRLA batteries in a specific PV-hybrid cycling environment was easily met. Results to date indicate that the Ultrabattery technology is capable of achieving over six times greater cycle life than conventional VRLA technology. The secondary goals of this work were also achieved by defining operating parameters for using the Ultrabatlery in PV-hybrid power systems. Full details will be available in the final report on the project. 2009 Met This milestone was met. The kickoff meeting was held in the middle of the quarter. The system design was completed. Schematic drawings for the electrical distribution system; the layout and of the energy storage system in the prefabricated housing; and the configuration of system protection and data monitoring systems were provided. A detailed operations manual for the data logger was also provided. The installation of a 2.5 Megawatt system at Malverne Station will without doubt improve the performance of the system in this location. The fast response and stiff voltage regulation of the Energy Storage SystethESS) will allow the trains to be operated with faster acceleration and less disruption than they are currently experiencing. Acceptable performance includes demonstrating that the FESS can deliver (discharge) or receive (charge) 2.5 MW for 15 seconds {for the configuration), with a configuration option that can achieve a 30-second discharge at 2.5 MW. 2008 Met The best candidate electrolyte was determined to be the cerium chloride-DMSO-based system having an 8 Volt working range. significantly higher than the typical 2.6-2.8 Volt systems and with a corresponding 3 to 4 fold increase in energy density. All of the ionic liquids evaluated do exhibit higher working voltages, however they also exhibit significantly higher ionic resistance. Consequently, the systems provide higher energy, but with a reduced power capability that is problematic for many applications. The cerium chloride?DMSO. based system with. a dissolved. lithium. salt exhibits much lower resistance and does not suffer from this reduced power behavior. . Interaction. of this electrolyte system with a. variety of electrode materials was also explored. for. a better understanding of the fundamental processes associated. with the passivation process. 200? Met A preliminary report on the joint State projects with the California Energy Commission and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) has been completed. The 450kW energy storage device utilizing supercapacitor technology was commissioned September 19, 2007 at the Vermont facility of Distributed Energy Systems. The system will be installed at the Palmdale, CA water treatment plant microgrid as part of the CECIDOE Energy Storage Collaboration. It will provide backup power and help balance generation by wind, hydro, and natural gas. Documentation: Work will be performed at Sandia National Laboratories and quarterly reports will be published as draft SAND reports. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 75 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Program: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Website: Performance Goal: Operations and Anaiysisi?infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration Complete a mitigation strategy document to enhance the security of the nation?s energy infrastructure using the results of the 2010 pilot study of the energy system and its interdependencies in order to further enhance the reliability, survivability, and resiliency of energy system Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met ISER continues to refine a criticality methodology for energy infrastructure. This methodology leverages new geospatial mapping and information capabilities that are being developed for FY12 and reflected in the FY12 performance metric. Infrastructure analysis of certain key geographic areas is an ongoing effort and will be used to inform current and future initiatives to mitigate threats to the sector. 2010 Met 04 milestone and end of year target were met. While the web-based, industry-wide survey pilot was implemented, ISER has revisited the methodology and determined a change to a more applicable capability to meet the mission demand is needed and in the process has targeted an additional 5% of the oil and natural gas industry and those industries that support the oil and natural gas industry. 2009 Mai OE has met the 2009 annual target. The office submitted a formal request to the Western Electricity Coordinating Council, WECC, to obtain electric transmission data for the western United States. WECC had received a similar request from the North American Electricity Reliability Corporation, NERC, and asked ISER to investigate obtaining the data directly from NERC. After several meetings with NERC it was determined that the data that they are requesting is at a higher level than the data that ISER needs to complete the real time transmission status displays in our current modeling platform, VERDE. As a result, ISER has resubmitted the request to WECC to obtain the data directly. The request is being prepared for presentation to the board of directors for their consideration at an upcoming board meeting. The data from WECC will be combined with existing data feeds from the eastern interconnect and data feeds from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, ERCOT. Together, these industry sources are capable of providing transmission status coverage that would enable the office to have comprehensive and near real time information as planned. Documentation: Mitigation Strategy Report, analysis of energy infrastructure systems, inputs from industry through meetings and the web- based tool DOE FY 20} i Armani Performance Report 76 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Program: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Website: Performance Goal: Operations and Siting and Analysis PSA will assist 30 states each year in designing and implementing state electricity policies, statutes, and regulations that facilitate the development of the electricity infrastructure needed to access clean energy resources. The mixture of states and state assistance will vary from year to year Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded PSA met the annual target by responding to at least thirty states for assistance. 2010 lvlet PSA met all requirements for O4 and the end of the year by hosting multiple webinars with the Western Electricity Coordinating Council on July 2?th and August 11th. Reporting was done western states? State-Provincial Steering Committee approved conceptual frameworks for three long-term futures it wishes to see modeled under RTEP: a High Demand-Side Management case, a High Load Growth case, and a Low Carbon case. 2009 Not Met This is the second such study; the first was published on August 8, 2008. These studies are required triennially by section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and their purpose is to identify areas of the country that are experiencing chronic or persistent problems due to demand for transmission services that exceeds the safe carrying capacity of the areas? transmission networks. Documentation: Entities can request technical assistance through various sources (Le. phone calls to DOE, through Governor's offices or through National Labs); National Labs maintain a log documenting all requests. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 7? Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Program: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Website: Performance Goal: Renewabie and Distributed Systems integration Demonstrate 10% peak load reduction or improvement in asset utilization on two feeder systems Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Based on monitoring and data collection, two project sites have successfully demonstrated at least 10 percent peak load reduction on their feeder systems and improved their asset utilization. 2010 Met Milestone and end of year target met. Peak load reduction of 10% and improvement in asset utilization was demonstrated on two feeder systems. At the distribution feeder at ORNL, demonstrated and tested renewable penetration {at least 10%] impacts and evaluated benefits of inverter controls for mitigating stall. On the Lanai Project managed by SNL and NREL. the PV system is providing 800kw and the CHP is providing approximately 800kW which is over 10% of the peak load between 4.5MW and BMW. Storage that is being installed will add additional capabilities. 2009 Met The goal to demonstrate a 5 percent peak load reduction on distribution feeders with the implementation of Distributed Energy and Smart Grid Technologies was accomplished. The distributed resources were installed and are available to supply electricity during peak load periods. Monitoring and data collection have been initiated and continue. 2008 Met Nine projects were selected. Cooperative agreements have been awarded and are in place and the National Energy Technology Laboratory NETL was responsible for awarding contracts and will manage those cooperative agreements. Documentation: There are a number of projects (eight or more} that have a goal of greater than ten percent peak load reduction that are currently underway. All projects are fully funded and should be complete by 2015. Recent project summaries exist for all of these projects. Quarterly reports submitted to NETL Project summaries can be found at: or DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 78 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Program: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Website: Performance Goal: Research and De vefopmenf Program Efficiency Measure Maintain total Research and Development Program Direction costs in relation to total Research and Development costs of less than 12% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 lvlet Total Research and Development Program Direction costs in relation to total Research and Development costs were less than 12% 2010 lvlet Maintained total Research and Development Program Direction costs at relative to total Research and Development programmatic costs. 2009 Met The division continued to achieve an efficiency measure below the 12% target level. While the 9.71% costed number is well below the 12% target, it does reflect an increase over FY 2008. At least in part, this is due to Recovery Act work that pre-dated the Recovery Act appropriation, yet was required to successfully launch the Recovery Act effort. GE is presently re-casting at least a portion of these funds, which should, in turn, reduce the FY 2009 overhead under the regular budget. 2008 lvlet Year-end calculations indicates an overhead efficiency for OE at below the 12% target. 200? lvlet At efficiency measure was well within the 12% goal. This reflected OE's restricted use of program direction funds under the year-long continuing resolution. At the same time, the rise in the measure from 524% in FY 2006 was due to the maturing of the program, as well as more adequate program direction funding. The additional funding went to support services to enable improved planning, analysis and evaluation, as well as improved documentation of standard operating procedures. Documentation: Records maintained in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 79 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Program: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Website: or Performance Goal: Smart Grid Research and De veioprnent Smart Grid Clearing House Transition the fully developed Smart Grid Maturity Model (SGMM) to industry for global implementation of a measurement and verification process for smart grid advancements Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Transition of the SGMM to global industry well underway, including use by 120 utilities in 21 countries. Partner program to train and certify industry experts to assist utilities in applying the SGMM deployed, with seven partner organizations and 34 trained SGMM Navigators. Interest from utilities and partner organizations continues to grow as SGMM increasingly perceived as industry standard planning and progress measurement framework. 2010 Met 04 milestone and annual target met. Virginia Tech launched the "beta" version of the Smart Grid Information Clearinghouse on July 7,2010 and concluded the "beta" version phase on 09i30i2010 with the launch of the "full version of the SGIC. Documentation: Version 1.2 of the SGMM Update 2011 DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Reporr 80 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Program: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Website: Performance Goal: Transmission Reliability Demonstrate effectiveness of electro?mechanical grid stability alarm (analysis of characteristic power oscillations) implemented in 5 control centers Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Not Met The number of control centers was set up as 5 in a projected out?year target several years ago, and when the FY11 Target was firmed up, 2 control centers was specified by the Transmission Reliability program for the year. Prior to PM 1 the Transmission Reliability program realized that the most prominent oscillation frequency in the West was the northisouth oscillation between California and Washington, and the only one that had enough monitors {phasor measurement units} to analyze this trequency reliably. The first quarter milestone bore this out, and the two control centers {California Independent System Operator and Bonneville Power Administration} were chosen and carried through the year in the Transmission Reliability declared target, but was not changed from the 5 centers number in the official documents CE is reporting into. 2010 Met CETR met the annual target to 'Demonstrate a grid stability prototype alarm tool'. CETR has developed the specifications and design for a grid stability prototype alarm tool that is based on phase angle based operating limits. This prototype alarm tool is embedded in the Real Time Dynamics Monitoring System Version 7.0. This prototype tool will be released on Sept 30, 2010 for industry demonstration and evaluation. 2009 Met OE met its annual performance target. The development of a new Real Time Dynamics Monitoring System release incorporating new angle stability monitoring displays has been completed and is presently undergoing field trials at selected utilitiesiorganizations within the Eastern Interconnection power system. This modified prototype visualization tool will be released to the broader North American Initiative (NASPI) community for industry evaluation in 4th Quarter Fiscal Year 2009. 2008 Met The Area Interchange Error (AIE) visualization system has been completed and delivered to NERC, and they have accepted the system. The NERC Board of Trustees Technology Committee has reviewed and approved including the AIE tool as part of NERC Mission Critical applications. NERC Information Technology Group is now supporting and maintaining the AIE tool. 2007 Met The plan was completed with regards to the transition of leadership of the North American Initiative from the Department of Energy to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation with respect to deploying the network in. North America. DOE will. shift its focus to longer range research and development on applicationsthat use the data from this network, and NERC, as the, new Electricity Reliability Organization (ERO), will oversee expansion of the network itself, which can monitor compliance with the ERC) mandatory grid reliability standards. Documentation: The work on the oscillation tool by Montana Tech is reported on the following web site: Project Title: Load Control System Reliability Recipient: Montana Tech DOE FY 20} 1 Armani Performance Report 8! Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Program: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Website: Performance Goal: Iv?isuaiizationr and Controis Cyber Security Test and assess 2 control systems most widely used in the energy sector Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Exceeded Idaho National Laboratory (INL) National Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Test Bed Project team funded by CEDS Program has completed 1 cybersecurity assessment for one of North America?s major energy delivery control system vendors. The DOE-OE CEDS-funded Source Code Analysis and Conformance Testing Project led by the Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University has completed assessments on two energy-sector vendor control systems to assess conformance with secure coding standards. 2010 Met Target and Q4 milestone met. Security Audit files complete for 3 control systems including Siemens, Televent, and Areva. Testing is complete for Cisco system. 2009 Exceeded DOE completed cyber security assessments of 11 systems in a test bed environment. These systems are used mainly for applications in the US. electric power grid. DOE identified numerous vulnerabilities and developed recommendations for mitigation. As a result, vendors developed "next generation" systems with enhanced cybersecurity features. Utilities have deployed 6 of these "next generation" systems which will reduce the risk of energy disruptions due to cyber attacks on control systems. Documentation: In the INL FY1 1 Annual Operating Plan, which is in pre-approval status, there are plans to conduct an assessment of at least 1 control system used in the energy sector. This will be cost shared by industry which should help ensure success. In addition, Digital Bond, which has successfully prepared security audit files in the past, will be developing security audit tiles to allow the testing and assessment for Control Ivlicrosystems. andior SISCO. This is part of contract DE-FC26-07NT43312. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 82 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Nuclear Energy Program: New Nuclear Generation Technologies Website: Performance Goal: Fuel Cycle Research and Development Demonstrate progress toward the long?term mission to develop options to the current commercial fuel cycle management strategy by establishing long-term strategic plans for the program, identifying gaps in knowledge and uncertainties to resolve, and beginning the path to achieve the program?s grand challenge goals Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met This year's work produced major accomplishments related to system analysis, nuclear fuel testing, separation processes, waste forms, used fuel disposition, safeguard instrumentation development, modeling and simulation, and nuclear data. The advanced modeling and simulation campaign was focused to support advanced reactors and fuels. The wide range of research areas required the implementation of a strong technical coordination role, more independent review groups, and closer coordination with other DOE RED programs, especially advanced reactors and nuclear material control and safeguards. 2010 Met In FY 2010, the program made progress in developing long-term strategic plans for the program, identifying gaps in knowledge, and beginning the path to achieve grand challenge goals associated with the nuclear fuel cycle. The program's draft Summary of Accomplishments for FY 2010 report discusses the many research accomplishments in the development of fuel cycle technologies in FY 2010. The program revised their strategic Campaign Implementation Plans to identify the progress required to achieve the long-term mission of the program. 2009 Met In FY 2009, the Office of Fuel Cycle Ftesearch and Development met its annual target by conducting in used fuel separations, transmutation fuels, and fast reactors. Flesults and activities for FY 2009 are documented in a report titled: Fuel Cycle Ftesearch and Development Summary of Accomplishments for Fiscal Year 2009. The report discusses FY 2009 research accomplishments associated with the major elements of the program including: transmutation fuels development; separations and waste forms development; transmutation systems; materials protection; accountability and control technology development; advanced modeling and simulation; and systems analysis. 2008 Met In FY 2009, the program met its annual target by completing the 's?GIobal Nuclear Energy Partnership Technology Floadmap Phase which provides technology readiness and risks. the state of technology development achieved to date. future research and development, and economic evaluations needed to evaluate and realize potential recycle options. This report is supported by the results of previous fuel cycle research and development activities in the areas of spent fuel separations, advanced recycling reactor; transmutation fuel and related fabrication processes; safeguards and waste forms. 2007 Met In FY 2007, the program met its annual target through the completion of key advanced fuel cycle activities in the areas of spent fuel separations and fast reactor fuel fabrication, as well as through facility design activities for the Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center, Advanced Burner Reactor and Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility. The successful completion of these activities significantly adds to the Department'?s body of knowledge on advanced fuel cycle technologies that will help inform a Secretarial determination on the need for a second geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel, as well as a path forward for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership in June 2008. Documentation: program reports and documentation validating specific milestones; Program Manager Performance Certification Memorandum. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 83 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Nuclear Energy Program: New Nuclear Generation Technologies Website: Performance Goal: Light Water Fieactor Develop the scientific knowledge to extend existing nuclear plant operating life beyond the current 60 year limit and ensure their long term reliability, productivity, safety, and security by conducting activities in partnership with national laboratories, industry, universities, and international partners Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 lvlet NE made substantial progress in support of extending the operating life of existing nuclear power plants. There was a significant increase in research conducted in FY 2011 with all 5? scheduled deliverables completed by the end of the year. Significant research results include the completion of enhanced concrete and cable inspections at the Ginna nuclear power plant; a detailed assessment of the experiments needed to understand irradiation-assisted stress corrosion cracking; the initiation of three pilot plant projects; the delivery of an initial test version of the next generation safety analysis code, and the irradiation of silicon carbide cladding samples at the High Flux Isotope Reactor. 2010 Met Substantial progress was made in establishing the base of scientific knowledge to extend the operating life of existing commercial nuclear power plants. In FY 2010, research and development activities conducted by national laboratories, industry, universities and international partners was expanded. Additional knowledge was gained and documented through various projects. Documentation: program reports and documentation validating specific milestones; Program Manager Performance Certification Memorandum. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 84 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Nuclear Energy Program: New Nuclear Generation Technologies Website: Performance Goal: Modeling and Simulation Hub Using high performance computers, create a prototype of a virtual reactor for predictive simulation of Light Water Reactors by 2015 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met The Hub is doing very well and is adhering to management plans as described in their proposal. The recently completed annual review of the Hub had no major finding or recommendations for changes to the current scope or structure of the Hub. The Hub is well positioned to make significant progress on the issues of CRUD and grid-to-rod fretting in FY 2012 and FY 2013, respectively. Documentation: Montth program reports and documentation validating specific milestones; Program Manager Performance Certification Memorandum. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 85 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Nuclear Energy Program: New Nuclear Generation Technologies Website: .html Performance Goal: Next Generation Nuclear Piant Activities Determine a path forward for the design and construction of a next generation nuclear power plant in 2011 by partnering with private industry on the development of NGNP, performing environmental assessment activities, and continuing with the research, analysis, design, and licensing activities to establish the basis for determining whether the project should continue to Phase 2 Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met All milestones were met ahead of schedule. Successful milestone completion works towards reducing NGNP project risk and increasing private sector involvement. The crack growth system and AGO-1 "ready to insert" milestones demonstrate significant progress towards the qualification of high temperature metals and new grades of graphite for use in the extreme environments of a High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor. Submission the Emergency Planning Zone white paper began the dialogue with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the establishment of emergency planning actions and industrial siting criteria which is essential for coupling NGNP to industrial applications. In addition, the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee Review of the NGNP first project phase was completed. 2010 Met All program milestones were met and deliverables were completed and submitted to the Department for review. The program is positioned to meet all Phase Energy Policy Act of 2005 deliverables on schedule. The Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee (NEAC) review of NGNP and recommendation to the Secretary of Energy concerning whether NGNP is ready to proceed to Phase II will end in May 2001. The Secretary's decision is scheduled for August 201 1. 2009 Met The NGNP Conceptual Design Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) was successfully issued in the fourth quarter. All program milestones were met and deliverables were completed on schedule and submitted to the Department of Energy (DOE) for review. The FOA will facilitate the extension of the application of nuclear energy into the broader industrial and transportation sectors, reducing fuel use and pollution and improving on the inherent safety of existing commercial light water reactor technology. 2008 Met In FY 2008, Generation IV met its annual performance measure through a number of research, design and regulatory activities, including submission of the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Licensing Strategy, prepared jointly by DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), to Congress in August 2008. In addition, the program completed NGNP conceptual. design technology selection studies and evaluated alternatives for entering into. formal cost?sharing partnerships with industry, The program also made significant. progress in fuels, graphite, and high. temperature. materials research and. development in support of the NGNP. 200? Met In FY 200?, Generation Iv met its annual performance measure through a number of research, design and regulatory activities, includingthe issuance of a Pre?Conceptual Design Report that establishes preliminaryfunctional and operational design requirements for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). Successful experimental activities included operational testing of the Graphite Creep Test capsule and fuels irradiations that began in December 2006. These activities significantly contribute to the program??s 2011 selection of functional and operational design requirements of the NGNP in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Documentation: program reports and documentation validating specific milestones; Program Manager Performance Certification Memorandum. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 86 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Nuclear Energy Program: New Nuclear Generation Technologies Website: Performance Goal: Toiai NE Administrative Overhead Costs Maintain total administrative overhead costs in relation to total R8D program costs of less than 8% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met The Office of Nuclear Energy met its goal and kept total administrative overhead costs in relation to total R80 program costs at less than 8% FY 2011. Effectively controlling overhead costs is important to the Office of Nuclear Energy. 2010 Met For FY 2010, the Office of Nuclear Energy maintained a total administrative overhead cost efficiency of 6.20%, in relation to total R8D program costs. Achievement of the annual milestone shows that REED program management costs are being effectively controlled. 2009 Met For FY 2009, the Office of Nuclear Energy maintained a total administrative overhead cost efficiency of 7'.83% in relation to total Flat! program costs, which is under the annual target of Achievement of the annual target shows that R8D program management costs are being effectively controlled. 2008 Met For FY 2008, the Office of Nuclear Energy maintained a total administrative overhead cost efficiency of 8.51%, in relation to total R80 program costs. Achievement of the annual target shows that program management costs are being effectively controlled. 200? Met For FY 200?, the Office of Nuclear Energy maintained a total administrative overhead cost efficiency of 7.97%, in relation to total R8D program costs. chievement of the annual target shows that R8D program management costs are being effectively controlled. Documentation: Ouarterly Measure Calculation; Program Manager Performance Certification Memorandum. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 8? Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Nuclear Energy Program: National Nuclear Infrastructure Website: Performance Goal: Cost and Schedule Baseline Variance Execute general plant and construction projects within approved cost profiles and schedules, as measured by the total percentages of projects with cost performance indexes and schedule performance indexes between 0.9 and 1.15 (using earned value measurement systems for GPPs and other program defined maintenance and upgrade projects} Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met NE exceeded the goal of having at least 80% of its projects meeting the Schedule Performance Index and Cost Performance Index targets. By the end of FY 2011, 100% (four out of four) projects had met the index targets. 2010 Met 75 percent (three out of four) of General Plant Projects met the 0.9 to 1.15 Schedule Performance Index (SPI) and the Cost Performance Index (CPI) targets. The Special Nuclear Material Glovebox Project did not meet the SPI and CPI targets. Based on the subcontractor's corrective actions, the estimated delivery of the glovebox can still be completed within the current project schedule baseline. Other project management corrective actions ongoing to date include advanced project planning to improve project definition and cost estimate maturity before a performance baseline is established. 2009 Met The Idaho Facilities Management program achieved an overall year-end earned value of 8.84% behind schedule and 4.32% under cost. The overall values included a substantial amount of level-of-effort scope and were within the target variance range. The project performance sub-set of the IFM program, however, was found to be 12.8% behind schedule and 7.32% under budget and reflect individual values that have a high degree of variation in project performance. Specifically, 13 of 25 projects underway at the close of FY 2009 exceed the earned value variance target for both cost and schedule. These project performance values support program conclusions that concerns exist in IFM project planning. The program also found weaknesses in project execution contributing to these performance levels. Planning processes developed for FY 2010 execution and out-year planning are expected to address these weaknesses. 2008 Met For FY 2008, the program met its target by achieving cumulative cost and schedule variances at Idaho National Laboratory of less than 10%. The cumulative cost variance (CV) was 3.5 percent and the schedule variance was Monitoring performance against established baselines helps managers achieve desired program results consistent with budget execution strategy, and provides early identification of possible problems in budget execution. 2007 Met For FY 2007, the program met its target by achieving cumulative cost and schedule variances at Idaho National Laboratory of less than 10%. The cumulative cost variance (CV) was 3.2% percent and the schedule variance (8V) was 4.4% percent. Monitoring performance against established baselines helps managers achieve desired program results consistent with budget execution strategy, and provides early identification of possible problems in program execution. Documentation: IFM Project Management Fleports; Program Manager Performance Certification Memorandum DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 88 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Nuclear Energy Program: National Nuclear Infrastructure Website: Performance Goal: Facifity fdaho Facfiities Management Program Enable nuclear research and development activities by providing operational facilities and capabilities, as measured by operational availability percentages Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Not Met NE did not meet its goal of maintaining IFM facilities at 80% available. INL's Materials and Fuels Complex was 80.4% available, which met the goal. However, the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), preeminent research capability, was 71.6% available. The primary reason for the ATFI not being available for 28.4% of the time was the continued equipment reliability issues plaguing the ATR. Several equipment reliability issues resulted in decreased availability. 2010 Met The facility availability for all facilities was well above the established goal of 75% availability for FY 2010. Improved availability of the Idaho National Laboratory facilities, and their associated capabilities is critical to helping NE achieve the progress necessary to meet our nation?s energy challenges. Documentation: IFM Project Management Reports; Program Manager Performance Certification Memorandum DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 89 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Nuclear Energy Program: National Nuclear Infrastructure Website: Performance Goal: index RAD (Space and Defense) Ensure unique nuclear facilities are available to support critical Departmental missions, maintain a facility operability index of 0.9 for key Radiological Facilities Management program facilities Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met The program met its target of a Facility Operability Index of 0.9 for its facilities at INL, LANL, and ORN L. The program conducted improvements to some facilities. ORNL initiated upgrades to equipment in support of carbon-bonded-carbon fiber production and the planned outage of the E-beam welder for routine cleaning. INL is developing operating instructions for the multi-purpose glovebox and is finishing installation of the thermal vacuum chamber upgrades. These upgrades will help ensure that nuclear facilities continue to be available to support critical Departmental missions. 2010 Met For FY 2010, the Space and Defense program achieved an overall Facility Operability Index of greater than 0.9. The program has demonstrated the ability to produce and fuel the General Purpose Heat Source Module using all of the facilities it maintains. This is a critical function in maintaining the national capability to produce long life power supplies for space and national security missions. Documentation: Periodic Performance Reports; Program Manager Performance Certification Memorandum DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 90 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Fossil Energy Program: Clean Coal Website: Performance Goal: Advance Turbines Demonstrate a hydrogen fueled combined cycle gas turbine (previously fueled with syngas) and maintain the same efficiency performance improvement realized in 2010 (2-3 percentage points} Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Two large hydrogen turbine industry team projects met all four of the FY 2011 quarterly milestones for development of critical components. Key requirements for developing gas turbines with increased efficiencies and lower emissions include the optimization of hydrogen combustion systems and the corresponding emissions control. Advanced material systems for turbine components subjected to the high temperature gas path and the corresponding aerodynamic validation of advanced aerodynamic designs are also necessary strategies to reduce the cooling air requirements while advancing turbine efficiencies. Meeting this annual target directly supports DOE-FE goal 1.2.1 1 by specifically addressing performance measures identified in Objective 3 for the Fossil Energy Coal and Power program. 2010 Met A key requirement for developing gas turbines with higher efficiency and a lower cost-of-electricity is the optimization of material systems for turbine components subjected to the high temperature turbine gas path and the corresponding cooling effectiveness strategies to. reduce the cooling. air requirements. The two large industry team hydrogen. turbine projects in the development of. these critical components is demonstrated. in. large. part by meeting all. four of the FY 2010. GPRA quarterly. milestones. 2009 Met A key requirement for developing turbines for coal based power systems that minimize the emissions of carbon dioxide is the optimization of the turbine components subjected to the high temperature turbine gas path. In FY 2009 the large industry team hydrogen turbine projects made excellent progress in the development of these critical components as demonstrated by meeting the FY 2009 quarterly milestones. By advancing the state of the art in these areas, the gas turbine team members have continued to strive towards turbine temperatures high enough to attain projected efficiency increases. The efficiency increases and the aerodynamic and mechanical improvements anticipated from this work will allow turbines to be built that are more efficient, have higher power output, lower emissions and cost less These turbines will allow coal based IGCC power plants, with carbon capture and storage to be deployed with a lower cost of electricity. Meeting this annual target directly supports DOE-FE FY 2010 goal of developing technologies that can produce electricity from coal at 45-50% efficiency based on higher heating value (HHV) at a capital cost of 351760ka (in 2007 dollars). 2008 Met A key requirement for developing turbines for coal based power systems that minimize the emissions of carbon dioxide is high temperature, stable and low combustion of hydrogen fuels. In FY 2008, the GE and Siemens hydrogen turbine projects made excellent progress in the area of hydrogen combustion through a full range of testing, including a full head?end combustor test. This was demonstrated in large. part by meeting allfour of the FY. 2008 GPFlAquarterly milestones. Results fromthese tests demonstrated that low single digit emissions at combustion temperatures high enough to attain projected efficiency increases. are possible. This efficiency increase and the aerodynamic. and mechanical improvement anticipated in third stage turbine blades will allow turbines to be built that are more efficient, have higher power output, lower emissions and cost less These turbines will allow coal based integrated gasification combined cycle power plants, which minimize the emissions of carbon dioxide, to be deployed with a lower cost of electricity. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 9} 200? Met Annual Accomplishment Met. The conceptual prototype combustor module testing being conducted under Phase I of the hydrogen turbine development project was completed on September 30, 200?. The test demonstrated that single digit NOX emissions were demonstrated at lower firing temperatures versus design inlet temperature of The two most promising low high?hydrogen fueled, combustion concepts that offer the highest probability of meeting the efficiency, emissions, and cost goals of the turbine program are a lean {fuel 8: air) pre-mix concept and a lean dilute diffusion concept. Documentation: Both industry team partners have submitted letters detailing their quarterly milestone accomplishments. They have also presented the milestone results at quarterly meetings and further details are included in the quarterly technical progress reports. Documentation is stored in M1. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 92 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Fossil Energy Program: Clean Coal Website: Performance Goal: Carbon Sequestration Net Cost Conduct laboratory tests through pilot?scale tests of advanced pro?combustion capture technologies that show, through engineering and systems analyses studies, continued achievement toward the goal of 90 percent CO2 capture at no more than a 14-percent increase in cost of electricity Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Preliminary Analysis reported that systems engineering studies have shown that when incorporated into the IGCC with 90% carbon capture and storage, technology advancements in the Advanced Power System and Sequestration Programs result in a cost of electricity increase of 14% relative to the reference non-capture IGCC. By meeting the annual target for advanced capture and sequestration from power plants and other energy plants, the pre-combustion capture activities are developing economical ways to validate technology improvements of an advanced power plant with carbon capture technology. Achievement of the target will also help to support FE goals by reducing the cost of COS for existing and future fossil fuel power generating facilities and provide protocols for pre-combustion COZ capture technologies. 2010 Met Preliminary systems engineering studies have shown that when incorporated into the IGCC with 90% carbon capture and storage, technology advancements in the Advanced Power System and Sequestration Programs result in a cost of electricity increase of 15% relative to the reference non-capture IGCC. In addition, each of the quarterly milestones contributed to meeting the annual target by developing technologies that can be integrated into the power system to reduce the costs of electricity from capture. In FY10, nine new pro-combustion projects were selected that will address pre-combustion COE capture technologies capable of validating technology improvements of an advanced power plant with CO2 capture technology. These projects are focusing on high-temperature, high-pressure membranes; high- efficiency solvents; solid. sorbents with commercially relevant separation capacity and regenerability; and advanced separation devices for separating CO2 or hydrogen (H2) from shifted syngas and novel approaches for pre?combustioh removal and capture of the carbon content of fuels for storage. By meeting the annual target for advanced capture and sequestration from power plants and other energy plants, the pre?combustion capture activities are developing economical ways to validate technology improvements of an advanced power plant with carbon capture technology. The construction of the Dispersed Bubble Reactor system will allow evaluation of higher pressure regeneration at moderate temperatures, which can reduce CO2 compression capital costs and corresponding energy requirements. In addition, higher loadings expected with the system can reduce the amount of solvent required. Completion of the milestone to prepare a list of experimentally characterized ionic liquid candidates for development as high temperature solvents contributes to meeting the annual target of a 15% net cost of CO2 capture and separation as measured by percent of cost of electricity. This is achieved through improved understanding of a class of non-volatile solvents which are potentially applicable to CO2 separation and identifying specific substances within that class which show promise in this application. By meeting the annual target for advanced capture and sequestration from power plants and other energy plants, the pre-combustion capture activities are developing economical ways to validate technology improvements of an advanced power plant with carbon capture technology. Achievement of the target will also help to support FE goals by reducing the cost of 003 for existing and future fossil fuel power generating facilities and provide protocols for pre-combustion CO2 capture technologies. _2009 Met Annual Accomplishment: Systems engineering studies coordinated by NETL have shown that when incorporating DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 93 advanced technology improvements of an advanced power plant with carbon capture, the resulting increase in busbar cost of electricity for 90% 002 capture is no more than relative to 2003 technology baseline. 2008 lvlet As indicated in the 2007 PART goal justification for the Sequestration Program, an advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plant with carbon capture and sequestration technologies under development at NETL, projects to have an increase in cost of electricity of 19%. This work has been done in laboratory scale experiments which are typically equivalent to kilowatt (kW) scale experimentation. Commercial based systems will require development to 1005 of megawatts in size. Research in 2008 focused on the development of these types of technologies toward commercialization. Specifically, research was conducted to further develop polybenzimidazole (PEI) membranes for pre-combustion capture by SRI International and Los Alamos National Laboratory. This work involves the development of ASPEN-based engineering process models along with the production and evaluation of hollow-fiber based PBI membranes. Due to the need for additional technologies capable of approaching the 2012 program goals, a funding opportunity announcement for pre-combustion C302 capture technologies was also released in 2008. Project selections and awards from this effort are expected in 2009. Research was also performed by the sequestration program on post- combustion capture during a transition of the research to another program at NETL. 200? Met Documentation: The subject analysis is documented in an attachment to the 201 1 Coal Program GPRA Annual Report and is titled "Appendix B: IGCCICS System Analysis: IGCC Plant that Incorporates Advanced Technologies to Capture and Sequester cog?. The report is available from NETL. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 94 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Fossil Energy Program: Clean Coal Website: Performance Goal: Carbon Sequestration Phase Inject 1.5 million metric tons of COE cumulatively at large?volume field test sites since 2009 to demonstrate the formation's capacity to sequester carbon by developing technologies that can safely and economically store carbon dioxide from coal-based energy systems Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met An Early Test initially injected 827,?44 metric tons of CO2 into the lower Tuscaloosa Formation from July 2008 until April 2009 as a Phase II project. Phase started in April 2009 and continues to inject CO2 today. Some of the CO2 is produced and recycled back into the Tuscaloosa Formation as part of an enhanced oil recovery project, as CO2 is a potent hydrocarbon solvent. The combination of what is injected, produced, and recycled back into the earth is part of an accounting system that determines what is actually stored in the Tuscaloosa Formation. As of August 5, 201 1, an additional 3,090,955 metric tons has been stored in Phase from 2009 until the present. The Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB) is conducting two large scale injection projects in the lower Tuscaloosa Formation and Paluxy Formations, a key component of a larger, regional group of similar formations, called the Gulf Coast lJ'iuledge. The first injection project or ""Early Test"" has initiated injection of CO2 into the lower Tuscaloosa Formation. The technical knowledge developed by these large-scale injection projects will result in best practices that can be used by all projects as they perform additional large-volume field tests. These field tests will demonstrate the capacity of the formations to sequester carbon by developing technologies that can safely and economically store CO2 from coal-based energy systems. Preparing. CCS for broad. scale deployment requires significant technical and non?technical work to be completed in injection, tests and these types of. tests lay. the path for integrated demonstrations. of. C08. 2010 Met The Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB) is. conducting a two?step, large?volume injection test in the lower Tuscaloosa Formation and Paluxy Formation. During the FY. 2010 months from October 1, 2009 thru July 31, 2010,. injected 1,368,098 metric tons (1,504,908 tons} of. CO2. This amount of 002 injected exceeds the Annual Target amount by 388,098 metric tons (504,908 tons). The DOE?sponsored Weyburn?Midale Monitoring and Storage Project is the second large?volume carbon storage project to inject more than 1 million metric tons of C02. The current injection rate of over 2 million metric tons of C02 per year is being accomplished at the Weyburn Oil Field in Saskatchewan, Canada. These field tests will demonstrate the capacity of the formations to sequester carbon by developing technologies and best practices that can safely and economically store C02 from coal?based energy systems. During the fiscal year 2010 months from October 1, 2009, thru July 31, 2010, has injected 1,388,098 metric tons {1,504,908 tons} of CO2. This amount of CO2 injected exceeds the Annual Target amount by 368,098 metric tons {504,908 tons). Injection amounts for the months of August and September have not been reported yet, but once received will further validate that the milestone has been met without dispute. The DOE-sponsored li?tieyburn-Midale Monitoring and Storage Project is the second large-volume carbon storage project to inject more than 1 million metric tons of (302. The current injection rate of over 2 million metric tons of 002 per year is being accomplished at the Weyburn Oil Field in Saskatchewan, Canada. The injection is part of an ongoing enhanced oil recovery effort that is highly instrumented for tracking and accounting for the COB injected and stored in the field. Both Weyburn and the adjacent Midale oil field are highly suitable for COE storage as part of the process and it is expected that more tha_n 40 million tons of can eventually be stored in these carbonate reservoirs over the DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 95 coming decades. The technical knowledge developed by these large?scale injection projects will result in best practices that can be used by all projects as they perform additional large?volume field tests. These field tests will demonstrate the capacity of the formations to sequester carbon by developing technologies that can safely and economically store CO2 from coal?based energy systems. Preparing 008 for broad scale deployment requires significant technical and non-technical work to be completed in injection tests and these types of tests lay the path for integrated demonstrations of CBS. 2009 Met Annual Accomplishment: The Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership managed and administered under DOE Cooperative Agreement Number DE-FC2B-05NT42590 by the Southern States Energy Board, initiated carbon dioxide {002} injection for their large-volume field test in 2009 in the saline waters beneath the oil bearing formation at the Cranfield site, near Natchez, Mississippi. Members of SECARB, The Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) at the University of Texas at Austin and Denbury Resources, Incorporated, began this injection in three downdip wells. By June 30, 2009, scientific instrumentation installed nearly two miles beneath the surface was successfully tracking the movement of 890,014 metric tons of injected 002. 2008 Met Six Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Phase projects were awarded. Since award, these projects have begun their initial activities which include the site selection and documentation necessary for the National Environmental Policy Act requirements. The following projects have completed NEPA activities: Environmental Assessments for MGSC and SECARB, CXs for POOR Fort Nelson Project and first Budget Period of SWP, and WESTCARB Partnerships. These tests will inject up to 1 million tons of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) per project with some at this rate per year into regionally significant geologic storage sites. These large scale injection tests are the key to establishing the best practices and developing the required regional infrastructure for sequestration in geologic formations. Documentation: Additional supporting informationrdocumentation for the SECARB project is provided on a regular basis to the NETL project managen?partnership lead. Additionally, representatives from the SECARB will be in attendance at the Carbon Storage Program Infrastructure Annual Review Meeting, sponsored by NETL, to discuss progress made on the large-scale project. The Carbon Storage Program Infrastructure Annual Review Meeting is being held on November 15?1 T, 2011 in Pittsburgh, DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 96 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Fossil Energy Program: Clean Coal Website: Performance Goal: Ciean Coat Power initiative Technoiogy Demonstrations Round 3 Complete all CCPI Round 1 projects. Complete Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) of at least one project Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Final Reports for all three projects that completed their demo phases have been received and published. Post Project Assessments for all three projects that completed their demo phases have been published. Thus, all activities under have been completed, which in turn signifies completion of the first part of the Annual Target. Also, four Front End Engineering and Design contracts were awarded as part of four projects. Progress under these four projects has led to successful completion of the FEED Study for the AEP Mountaineer Project, which resulted in achievement of the Annual Target. Awarding four FEED contracts and completing one FEED study support FE goals though implementation of advanced technology demonstrations using public private partnerships. 2010 Met NETL approved initiation of construction of the cooperative agreement with Southern Company, Demonstration Of A Coal-Based Transport Gasifier DE-FCEB-OBNT42391. The NEPA process was completed by issuing a Record of Decision, and the cooperative agreement was modified to approve construction. Construction has been initiated for the Southern Company project, site work, including grubbing and clearing is. underway. In. addition, awards were made for project selected under CCPI-B. The. Project Definition Phases were. initiated for four projects selected under the. American Electric Power. Service Corporation, NRG Energy, Summit Texas Clean Energy LLC, and Hydrogen Energy California LLC. Initiating. construction and awarding. demonstration projects support FE goals though implementation of advanced technology demonstrations. using public-private partnerships. 2009 Met Annual. Accomplishment Met: The Clean Coal Power Initiative Round 3 Funding Opportunity Announcement DE-PS26-08NT43181 was issued on August 1 1, 2008, and applications were. received on January 20,. 2009.. In accordance with the Evaluation and Selection Plan, the qualifying proposals were reviewed by a Merit Review Board. Applications were subject to technical, financial, budget, and environmental evaluations. The results of these evaluations were presented to the Selection Official, and two project selections were announced on July 1 2009. The projects selected under in FY2009 will demonstrate the technical feasibility of capturing carbon dioxide emissions from coal?fueled power systems, and test the feasibility of large scale storage of C02 in geologic formations. 2008 Met The annual target is not met. The 40 milestone will not be met before the end of the year. The issue with this milestone will impact schedule but not cost to achieve. The milestone will be met on January 15, 2009, which is the due date for submission of applications to the Funding Opportunity Announcement. This amounts to a 3V2 month schedule slip for this milestone. The annual target will be met by July 2009, when announcement of selections is scheduled for There is no additional cost in meeting this annual target of completing the solicitation. Activities are merely delayed, there are no additional activities required to meet this milestone or annual target. The overall impact of this delay is that there will be delays in initiating and completing projects under Objective Clean Coal Power Initiative Technology Demonstrations. Future solicitations will not be delayed because schedules for these future solicitations depend on future year appropriations, which are not affected by the delay in meeting this milestone. Documentation: Supporting documentation consists of the Final Reports, Post Project Assessments and the AEP Draft Final Report identified in the individual quarters below, which all support completion of the quarterly milestones. DOE FY 20} 1 Armani Performance Report 9? Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Fossil Energy Program: Clean Coal Website: Performance Goal: Fuels The Fuels activity helps reduce technological market barriers for the reliable, efficient, and environmentally friendly conversion of coal to hydrogen with a goal of (2002$). Initiate 12 lb H2fday test for hydrogen membrane separations Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met In FY1 1, membrane testing and demonstration moved from laboratory scale pure gas tests to realistic test conditions using mixed gases, simulated contaminated syngas and actual coal-derived feeds. The WPI and UTRC membranes functioned for long-term durations at gasifier test facilities, operating at :2 lbsr?day hydrogen production, verifying the commercial potential of the advanced membranes. A large Eltron membrane system was designed, engineered, fabricated and installed on an operating gasifier, with the capability to achieve hydrogen production levels of 12 lbsr'day. In addition, preliminary systems engineering studies have shown that, when incorporated into a coal to hydrogen plant, technology advancements in the Fuels and Gasification Programs result in a cost of hydrogen production that meets or exceeds the annual target of $8.20rmillion Btu (costing methodology, including year dollars, adjusted to be consistent with the target basis). The objective of the work is to produce hydrogen, as an alternative fuel, from domestic coal resources in an efficient and environmentally friendly manner. 2010 Met Research was conducted to develop several technologies to reduce the cost of hydrogen production from advanced gasifier syngas streams. An evaluation of a series of Water Gas Shift and Fischer-Tropsch using mixed gas feeds (hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, water}, that have the potential to increase the efficiency of the membrane separators was completed. A comprehensive engineering design of advanced Pd-based composite membrane separators within a process intensification framework that reduces the number of unit operations was produced. An alternate pathway to conduct comprehensive membrane tests and evaluations. to prove the feasibility of using inexpensive, non?precious metal based membranes for economical hydrogen productionwas researched. 2009 Met Annual Accomplishment Met: During. FY 2009, successful hydrogen separation membrane testing was conducted by Eltron Research, United Technologies and Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Testing. has been conducted in the. presence of sulfur. impurities, using mixed gas. feeds (H2, CO, (302,. H20) and. at engineering prototype scale. Experiments utilizing mixed gas feeds have demonstrated the ability of these reactors to simultaneously promote the Water Gas Shift Reaction and achieve hydrogen separation. Under mixed gas conditions, a hydrogen flux of at least 340 standard cubic feet per hour per square foot was observed with hydrogen purity of 99.99%, which both exceeds DOE's 2010 and 2015 H2 flux and purity targets. The objective of the work conducted under the Hydrogen from Coal Program is to produce hydrogen, as an alternative fuel, from domestic coal resources in an efficient and environmentally friendly manner. 2008 Met During FY 2008, successful membrane tests were conducted by Eltron Research, Southwest Research Institute and Argonne National Laboratory. The tests demonstrated that hydrogen can be effectively separated from syngas with purity of greater than 95%. In addition, the tests demonstrated that high hydrogen flux rates can be achieved, which meet or exceed the 2010 target flux rates {although in absence of sulfur contaminants). Meeting the Annual Target supports the FE goals in that: The objective of the work conducted under the Hydrogen from Coal Program is to produce hydrogen, as an alternative fuel, from domestic coal resources in an efficient and environmentally friendly manner. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 98 200? lvlet Annual Accomplishment Met: Laboratory scale testing of three different membrane materials was successfully conducted during FY 2007'. The tests were conducted by Media and Process Technology, Inc., Eltron Ftesearch and Development, Inc. and Argonne National Laboratory. The tests demonstrated that the membrane materials being developed under the Hydrogen from Coal Program can successfully separate hydrogen from coal derived syngas. Documentation: Quarterly reports from seven project participants in M1 and three reports in preparation to be issued after FY2011. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 99 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Fossil Energy Program: Clean Coal Website: Performance Goal: Gasf?caffon Cost Support the development and deployment of advanced low cost, low carbon, energy efficient electrical generation technologies. Targeting a <12?fo increase in Cost of Electricity (00E) compared to a 2003 baseline for a near zero emissions IGCC with CBS system Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met The Annual Target was met by completing work on key sub systems within an system that contribute to lower parasitic power, efficient gas separation, low cost air separation, and more efficient fuel handling and feed systems. This work includes physical demonstration of the technologies along with system analysis to relate the work accomplished to COE impacts. Systems analysis studies, coordinated by NETL, reflected a 16% overall capital cost reduction, 2.9% increase in efficiency, and 12% decrease of COE when Warm Gas Cleanup (WGC) with Hydrogen Transport Membrane (HTM) technology were integrated together. This analysis is based on a comparison between this advanced system and a WGC with conventional Selexol. By integrating the dry solids pump technology into an IGCC flow sheet, a 2% efficiency increase can be realized when compared to gasifiers feeding a coal-water-slurry with traditional pump technology. Other studies conducted outside of NETL showed that an Ion Transport Membrane sub system can be integrated into variety CCS systems with no major increase in COE. The accomplishments mentioned above directly align with the FE strategic goals. Also, the technologies have made significant progress with regards to their designs and development leading to pilot-scale testing. 2010 Met Preliminary systems engineering studies coordinated by NETL have shown that when incorporated into the IGCC process flow sheet, technology advancements in the Advanced Power System Program result in 45% thermal efficiency at a capital cost of $1 ,600/kWe. 2009 Met Systems engineering studies coordinated by NETL have shown that when incorporated into the IGCC process flow sheet, technology advancements in the Advanced Power System Program result in 44% thermal efficiency at a capital cost of $1 ,629ka {in 200? dollars) 2008 Met Systems analysis coordinated by NETL have shown that when incorporated into the IGCC process flow sheet, technology advancements in the Advanced Power Systems Program result in a 43% thermal efficiency at a capital cost of $1 ,140kae (2003 baseline. of 2007 Met Technology improvements in advanced power sytems show that the advanced power systems program achieved 42% thermal efficiency at a capital cost of $1 ,1401?kWe, without incorporation of advancements in gasturbine technology. The gas turbine. developments will further reduce capital cost and improve thermal efficiency, ultimately leading to the achievement of the 2010 performance goal of advanced coal?based power system capable of achieving 45?50% efficiency at a capital cost of (2002 Dollars) or less. Documentation: Industry team partners have submitted detailed letters of their quarterly milestone accomplishments. Details are included in the quarterly technical progress and topical reports. See individual quarters below for details. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 100 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Fossil Energy Program: Clean Coal Website: Performance Goal: Innovations for Existing Piants Conduct laboratory tests through pilot?scale tests of advanced post and oxy?combustion capture technologies that show, through engineering and systems analyses studies, continued achievement toward the goal of 90% (302 capture and no more than a 55% increase in cost of electricity Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met During the past year, significant testing was accomplished on post-combustion and oxy-combustion 002 capture systems. These tests included over 100 hours of 15MWth oxy-combustion testing conducted by Alstom, over 50 hours of parametric post-combustion sorbent-based capture testing by SRI International and Aspen Aerogels, and pilot scale validation of 90% capture capability at the 1 kW scale by ADA and at 0.5 MW scale by Southern Company at the National Carbon Capture Center. These tests combined with the engineering, systems and cost analyses completed by MTR and ADA indicate that the Existing Plants Program has 00; capture technologies at various stages of development that are on a pathway to achieve at least 90% capture at an increase in the cost of electricity of less than 55%. Meeting the annual target provides progress towards the achievement of the FE goal of 90% 002 capture with less than a 35% increase in the cost of electricity. 2010 Met Oxy-combustion (302 capture testing was performed at pilot scales by and Reaction Engineering International (FtEl) for several coal types during 2010. During a couple of the Alstom test runs, Air Products evaluated the performance of their oxy-combustion 002 purification and compression system, which is vital to the eventual commercialization of the technology. A systems analysis developed by NETL OSAP indicates a pathway for the oxy- combustion technologies tested in these experiments along with other advances to surpass the 55% increase in cost of electricity. Additionally, GE Global Research conducted testing and a systems analysis on their advanced post- combustion solvent system. that indicates the ability of the solvent system to achieve 90% 002 capture. at approx a 55% increase in the cost of electricity. Meetingthe annual target provides progress towards the achievement ofthe FE goal of 90% 002 capture with less than a 30% increase in the cost of electricity. 2009 Met In 2009, research. and development of capture technologies continued the progress toward meeting the Department of Energy?s goals. Several. laboratory and. pilot?scale experimentswere. initiated in order to. evaluate and confirm the. performance of these technologies. Nearly 500 tons of sub?bituminous coal was utilized in a successful oxycombustion pilot test campaign conducted by Alstom in their retrofit 15 megawatt thermal tangentially fired boiler simulation facility. This test furthers the development of a technology that produces high (302 concentrations in power plant flue gas and therefore minimizes (302 purification prior to storage. 2008 Met Over the past two decades, the DOE Innovations for Existing Plants (IEP) Program has played a crucial role in moving advanced emission control technologies from concept to commercial reality. The successes from the program have been many. The IEP program has now taken on the critical challenge of climate change. In response to Congressional language in the Fiscal Year 2008 budget, the IEP program has shifted focus to on carbon dioxide capture technologies that can be retrofitted to existing pulverized coal-fired power plants. The program will also continue to address the important link between power plants and water use through its water management research. The IEP COE capture performance {90% COE capture} and cost target (no more than a 35% increase in for new and existing pulverized coal power plants was established in 2008 through detailed engineering analyses studies DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 101' specific to new and existing pulverized coal power plants. The program has established step wise targets for laboratory? scale development of post? and oxy?combustion 002 capture technologies that will show. through engineering and economic analyses. yearly progress towards meeting the performance and cost goals. In 2008, The key activity undertaken by the IEP program was the issuance of a funding opportunity announcement specifically focused on post-combustion and oxy-combustion 002 capture technologies for existing coal-fired power plants. Projects selected from this FDA were selected based upon the ability of the technology to meet the IEP program goals. The IEP Program tentative goals are to develop technologies capable of achieving less than a 35% increase in the cost of electricity while capturing 90% of the processed by the capture system. This is a necessary adjustment from the goal schedule in this target. Documentation: A letter of justification signed by Principal Investigator of Alstrom dated November 22, 2010, is filed on the drive. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Reporr 102 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Fossil Energy Program: Clean Coal Website: Performance Goal: SEGA Fuel Cells Capifof Costs Complete Design for Module Proof?of?Concept maintaining economic power block: Stack: $175ka Power Block: $700/kW (Ref: 2007} Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met FuelCell Energy (NT41837) completed the design of a 250kW proof?of?concept fuel cell module system. The design includes two identical Quads, each comprised of four stack towers. The design includes process piping, instrumentation and control routing, and electrical takeoffs and power system routing. FCE and its technology subcontractor, updated the stack and power block costs to the year 200? dollar baseline. The estimated fuel cell system (power block) cost is $635ka, and the stack cost is These estimates are below the $00ka and $175ka targets, indicating a positive achievement. This work, validated through stack testing, will reduce the cost and environmental impact of new clean coal fired plants {Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plants], enable 99% carbon dioxide capture, reduce water requirements substantially and increase energy security through increased use of domestic energy resources. 2010 Met FuelCell Energy tested a 16-cell stack at the Versa Power Systems (UPS) facilities in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The stack achieved 467mchm2 on July 2010. The test results, in conjunction with FCEs IGFC system and cost models, were used to establish the fuel cell power block system cost. The estimated fuel cell system (power block) cost is $3?1ka in year 2000 dollars. This work, validated through stack testing, will reduce the cost and environmental impact of new clean coal fired plants (IGCC plants), enable 99% carbon dioxide (002} capture, reduce water requirements substantially and increase energy security through increased use of domestic energy resources. 2009 Met Delphi, as a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) technology development subcontractor for the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance Industry Team led by UTC, designed, fabricated and tested a 5-cell short stack based upon the latest Gen 4 sealed cells. The tests demonstrated a power density of 496mchm2. Based upon this performance, system and cost analysis predicts a high-volume manufacturing cost of $163.22ka. Furthermore, Versa Power Systems, as a SOFC technology. development subcontractor for the. SECA Industry Team led by Energy, designed, fabricated and tested. a 92?cell stack based upon the latest TSCII. sealed cells. The tests. demonstrated a power. density of 393 mchmE. 2008 Met FuelCeII, Energy, Inc. (FCE) is representative. of the. progress in solid oxide. fuel cell (SOFC). system cost reduction within the Solid State Energy. Conversion. Alliance (SEGA), having. achieved a system cost of $560ka, surpassing the FY08. target of $600ka. This cost is based upon stack tests initiated by FCE in July, 2008 and systems modeling and analysis. The Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance program supports the development of advanced fuel cell systems through fuel cell power block research, development, design and manufacturing. This work, validated through stack testing, will reduce the cost and environmental impact of new clean coal fired plants (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plants), enable 99% carbon dioxide (C02) Capture, reduce freshwater requirements substantially and increase energy security through increased use of domestic energy resources. Achievement of this annual target system costs of $800ka or less - reflects significant progress towards the SECA goal of low-cost, high-efficiency modular solid oxide fuel cell systems. Documentation: FuelCell Energy (Dr. Hossein Ghezel-Ayagh, PI for letter dated June 2011. Filed on K: Drive and on M1. Results will be further documented in the Progress Report. See hyperlink in Q4. Results will be further documented in the Q4FY11 Progress Report, Factory Cost Estimate Topical Report and the Annual Technical Topical Report. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 103 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Fossil Energy Program: Petroleum Reserves Website: Performance Goal: Drawdown Readiness Ensure Strategic Petroleum Reserve drawdown readiness by achieving 2: 95% of maintenance and accessibilty goals Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual Accomplishment Met: Ensure drawdown readiness by achieving 98% of maintenance and accessibility goals. 2010 lvlet This is a weighted average of several maintenance performance elements calculated on a basis. Achieved a 98.4% for FY 2009. 2009 lvlet This is a weighted average of several maintenance performance elements calculated on a basis. Achieved a 98.4% for FY 2009. 2008 lvlet This final rating of 98% represents the weighted average of several maintenance performance elements calculated on a basis. Results for the fiscal year are based upon the average scores for all 12 months and exceeds the target of 95%. Documentation: This rating is the weighted average of several maintenance performance elements calculated on a basis. Quarterly rating is an average of the quarter?s scores. Annual results are based upon the average scores for all 12 months. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 104 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Fossil Energy Program: Petroleum Fteserves Website: Performance Goal: Strategic Petroleum Fteserve Operating Cost Ensure cost efficiency of operations by achieving operating cost per barrel of capacity of $0.229 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual Accomplishment Met: Ensure cost efficiency of operations by achieving operating cost per barrel of capacity of $0.229 2010 Met This measure is a calculation of annual program costs divided by the total storage capacity in barrels (72? million barrels). Year-end annual costs equate to an operating cost per barrel of $0.213. Cost efficiencies were achieved by favorable negotiation of the Seaway terminalling contract which resulted in elimination of standby charges. Additionally, accelerating the schedule for relocation of the vapor pressure plant from the Big Hill to the Bryan Mound site resulted in Power and Operations cost savings. Achieved an operating cost of $0.20? per barrel of capacity in FY 2009. 2009 Met This measure is a calculation of annual program costs divided by the total storage capacity in barrels (72? million barrels). Year-end annual costs equate to an operating cost per barrel of $0.218. Cost efficiencies were achieved by favorable negotiation of the Seaway terminalling contract which resulted in elimination of standby charges. Additionally, accelerating the schedule for relocation of the vapor pressure plant from the Big Hill to the Bryan Mound site resulted in Power and Operations cost savings. Achieved an operating cost of $0.20?r per barrel of capacity in FY 2009. 2008 Met This measure is a calculation of annual program costs divided by the total storage capacity in barrels (72? million barrels]. Year-end annual costs equate to an operating cost per barrel of $0.18? Cumulative costs were below the target due to cost efficiencies achieved. 200? Met This measure is a calculation of annual program costs divided by the total storage capacity in barrels (72? million barrels]. Year-end annual costs equate to an operating cost per barrel of $0.188. Cost efficiencies were achieved by favorable negotiation of the Seaway terminalling contract which resulted in elimination of standby charges. Additionally, accelerating the schedule. fcr. relocation of the. vapor. pressure plant from the. Big Hill to the Bryan Mound site resulted in Power and Operations cost savings. Documentation: This measure is. a calculation of annual. program costs divided by the total storage capacity in barrels. (7"27' million barrels). Quarterly performance. targets for operating costs are set toward accomplishing. an annualized estimate of. the operating cost per barrel of storage. capacity. DOE FY 20]} Armani Performance Report 105 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Fossil Energy Program: Petroleum Reserves Website: Performance Goal: Sustained (90 day) Dra wdown Rate Enable ready distribution of Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) oil by achieving maximum sustained (90 day) drawdown rate of 4.4 million barrels per day Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Annual Accomplishment Mel: Enable ready distribution of SPR oil by achieving maximum sustained {90 day} drawdown rate of 4.4 million barrels per day. 2010 Met At year-end, the drawdown rate was 4.4 million barrels per day as evidenced in the SPR Drawdown Readiness and Capability (RECAP) Report and the Online Readiness Computerized Assessment (ORCA) System. This metric reflects the drawdown rate [in barrels per day] that the SPR can sustain for an initial 90 days in order to distribute crude oil from underground storage sites to distribution points. 2009 Met At year-end, the drawdown rate was 4.4 million barrels per day as evidenced in the SPR Drawdown Readiness and Capability (RECAP) Report and the Online Readiness Computerized Assessment System. This metric reflects the drawdown rate [in barrels per day} that the SPR can sustain for an initial 90 days in order to distribute crude oil from underground storage sites to distribution points. 2008 Met The SPR maintained its drawdown rate of 4.4 million barrels per day . This metric reflects the drawdown rate {in barrels per day} that the SPR can sustain for an initial 90 days in order to distribute crude oil from underground storage sites to distribution points. 200? Met At year-end, the drawdown rate was 4.4 million barrels per day as evidenced in the SPR Drawdown Readiness and Capability (RECAP) Report and the Online Readiness Computerized Assessment System. This metric reflects the drawdown rate [in barrels per day] that the SPR can sustain for an initial 90 days in order to distribute crude oil from underground storage sites to distribution points. Documentation: This metric reflects the drawdown rate (in barrels per day) that the SPR can sustain for an initial 90 days in order to distribute crude oil from underground storage sites to distribution points. actual drawdown rate per quarter is evidenced in the SPR Drawdown Readiness and Capability (RECAP) Report and the Online Readiness Computerized Assessment System. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 106 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Power Marketing Administration Program: Bonneville Power Administration Website: Performance Goal: Hydropower Generation Efficiency Performance Hydropower Generation Efficiency Performance: Achieve 915% Heavy?Load?Hour Availability (HLHA) through efficient performance of federal hydro?system processes and assets, including joint efforts of BPA, Army Corps of Engineers, and Bureau of Reclamation Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met BPA and its FC RPS partners met this operational goal for the hydropower system with a result of 100.6% {official} for the year. Meeting this target demonstrates BPA's commitment and ability to provide reliable power to the region. By optimizing planned maintenance and taking into consideration expected forced outages, heavy load hour performance ensured that BPA had the system capacity to serve its system load. 2010 Met BPA and its FC RPS partners met this operational goal for the hydropower system with a result of 99.6%. Meeting this target demonstrates Bonneville's commitment and ability to provide reliable power to the region. By optimizing planned maintenance and taking into consideration expected forced outages, BPA's heavy load hour performance ensured that BPA had the system capacity to serve its system load. 2009 Met BPA achieved this target with 100.2% Heavy-Load-Hour Availability for FY 2009, demonstrating BPA's commitment and ability to provide reliable power to the region. By optimizing planned maintenance and taking into consideration expected forced outages, BPA's heavy load hour performance ensured that BPA had the system capacity to serve its system load. 2008 Met BPA achieved this target with 99.6% Heavy-Load-Hour Availability for FY 2008, demonstrating BPA's commitment and ability to provide reliable power to the region. By optimizing planned maintenance and taking into consideration expected forced outages, BPA's heavy load hour performance ensured that BPA had the system capacity to serve its system load. 200? Met BPA and its FC RPS partners met this operational goal for the hydropower system with a result of 99.6% (official) for the cumulative four quarters of FY 2007. Achieving this target for FY 2007 demonstrates commitment and ability to provide reliable power to the region. By optimizing planned maintenance and taking into consideration expected forced outages, BPA's heavy load hour performance ensured that BPA had the system capacity to serve its system load. Documentation: Quarterly FY 2011 Findings Memo (from BPA Chief Operating Officer to BPA Administrator} DOE FY 20]} Armani Performance Repcrr 107 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Power Marketing Administration Program: Bonneville Power Administration Website: Performance Goal: Repayment of Federaf Power investment Performance Meet planned annual repayment of principal on federal power investments Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met BPA made its annual Treasury payment in lull with an FY 2011 Treasury principal amortization payment of $409.5 million which included $33715 million of planned principal amortization and $7?2.0 million of advanced principal amortization. BPA met this performance target for the 28th straight year, demonstrating ongoing commitment to meeting its obligations to US. taxpayers. made a total annual payment of $829.8 million of which $409.5 million was principal amortization. 2010 Met EPA met this performance target for the 2?th straight year, demonstrating ongoing commitment to meeting its obligations to US. taxpayers. BPA made a total annual payment of $884.1 million of which $459.8 million was principal amortization. 2009 Met EPA met this performance target for the 28th straight year, demonstrating BPA's ongoing commitment to meeting its obligations to U.8. taxpayers. BPA made a total annual payment of $845.1 million of which $432 million was principal amortization. 2008 Met BPA met this performance target for the 251h straight year, demonstrating BPA's ongoing commitment to meeting its obligations to US. taxpayers. BPA made a total $983 million payment, $21 1 million of which was additional amortization due to debt optimization {credits of $223 million resulted in a net cash payment of $740 million}. Of this total, BPA's FY 2008 repayment of principal amount was $555 million. 200? Met BPA made its annual Treasury payment in full and on time, with a FY 2007? Treasury principal amortization payment of $818.4 million which included $329.5 million of planned principal amortization and $289.9 million of advanced principal amortization. Cumulative advanced amortization {principal repaid earlier than planned) at the end of FY 2007 totaled $2.091 billion. For the 24th straight year EPA has made its annual Treasury payment in full and on time -- meeting this performance target demonstrates ongoing commitment to meeting its obligations to U.S. taxpayers. Documentation: Quarterly FY 2011 Findings Memo (from BPA Chief Operating Officer to EPA Administrator} DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 108 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Power Marketing Administration Program: Bonneville Power Administration Website: Performance Goal: System Reiiabilr'ty Performance NERO Rating Attain average North American Reliability Council compliance ratings for Control Performance Standard 1 which measures generationi?load balance on one-minute intervals {rating or 100) Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met BPA achieved performance on CPS-1 of 137.93% against a target of no less than 100% {reported as a 12-month rolling average at the end of each quarter}. Meeting this target demonstrates BPA's ongoing commitment and ability to provide reliable transmission for the region. 2010 Met BPA achieved the CP81 standard for 12 of 12 months. Meeting this target demonstrates BPA's ongoing commitment and ability to provide reliable transmission for the region. 2009 Met BPA achieved 8 of 8 possible CPS pass ratings in each of the four quarters for FY 2009 for a total of 24 out of 24 possible pass ratings, demonstrating Bonneville's ongoing commitment and ability to provide reliable transmission for the region. For July, August, and Sept. 2009 respectively, BPA achieved pertormance on CPS-1 of 198.0%, 191 and 189.7%, against a target of no less than 100%; and on CPS-2 of 99.2%, 99.2%, and 98.4%, against a target of no less than 90% 2008 Met BPA achieved 8 of 8 possible CPS pass ratings in all four quarters for FY 2008, demonstrating BPA's ongoing commitment and ability to provide reliable transmission for the region. For July, August and Sept. 2008 respectively, BPA achieved performance on CPS-1 of 197.0%, 187.8%, and 187.1%, against a target of no less than 100%; and on CPS-2 of 97.8%, 98.0%, and 98.8%, against a target of no less than 90%. 2007 Met For July, Aug., and Sept. 2007, respectively, achieved performance on CPS-1 of 197.1%, 195.5%, and 192.3% against a target of no less than 100%; and on CPS-2 of 98.3%, 97.5%, and 97.1% against a target of no less than 90%. Achieving 6 of 8 possible CPS pass ratings in all four quarters for FY 2007 demonstrates BPA's ongoing commitment and ability to provide reliable transmission for the region. Documentation: Quarterly FY 2011 Findings Memo (from BPA Chief Operating Officer to EPA Administrator} DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 109 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Power Marketing Administration Program: Southeastern Power Administration Website: Performance Goal: Repayment of Federaf Power Investment Performance Repay the federal power investment within the required repayment period Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met During FY 2011, Southeastern achieved 100% of required repayment of the federal investment. Accomplishing this goal reflects Southeastern's commitment to repay the federal investment and maintain financial integrity. Repaid $19.8 million. 2010 lvlet During FY 2010, Southeastern achieved 100% of required repayment of the federal investment. Accomplishing this goal reflects Southeastern's commitment to repay the federal investment and maintain financial integrity. Repaid $29 million. 2009 lvlet During FY 2009, Southeastern achieved 100% of required repayment of the federal investment. Accomplishing this goal reflects Southeastern's commitment to repay the federal investment and maintain financial integrity. Repaid $1.6 million. 2008 lvlet During FY 2008, Southeastern achieved 100% of required repayment of the federal investment. Accomplishing this goal reflects Southeastern's commitment to repay the federal investment and maintain financial integrity. 200? lvlet Southeastern exceeded its required repayment. Despite record drought conditions Southeastern repaid $2.1 million which was greater than the target amount. Documentation: Third-party verification of supporting the financial audit data for tracking the repayment measures is prepared by an independent accounting firm DOE FY 20]} Annunf Performance Report 1 1'0 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Power Marketing Administration Program: Southeastern Power Administration Website: Performance Goal: System Performance NERO Meet North American Electric Reliability Council (NERO) Control Performance Standards (CPS) of and and meet or exceed industry averages. CPS1 measures a generating system's performance at matching supply to changing demand requirements and supporting desired system frequency in one minute increments. CPS2 measures a generating system's performance at limiting the magnitude of generation and demand imbalances in ten minute increments Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met During FY 2011, Southeastern's average annual results are 243.12 for CPS 1 8:1. 99.89 for CPS 2. Accomplishing this goal reflects Southeastern's ability to maintain safe, efficient and effective power system operation for control area performance. 2010 Met During FY 2010, Southeastern's average annual results are 234.10 for CPS 1 8 99.83 for CPS 2. Accomplishing this goal reflects Southeastern's ability to maintain safe, efficient and effective power system operation for control area performance. 2009 Met During FY 2009, Southeastern's average annual results are 227.97 for CPS 1 8 99.85 for CPS 2. Accomplishing this goal reflects Southeastern's ability to maintain safe, efficient and effective power system operation for control area performance. 2008 Met During FY 2008, Southeastern achieved 8 out of 8 control compliance ratings. Southeastern's average annual results are 20?.19 for CPS 1 8 99.81 for CPS 2. Accomplishing this goal reflects Southeastern's ability to maintain safe, efficient and effective power system operation for control area performance. 200? Met Achieving this target provides grid operators assurance that the power comes on line when it is supposed to 1) and that the quality of the power meets prescribed standards (CPS 2} in order for it to be useful to the transmission grid. CPS 1: 188.34; CPS 2: 99.71 Documentation: Third-party verification of supporting CPS-1 2 documentation can be provided by the SERC Reliability Corporation. Unlike other regions SERC data is not included in the SERC section of the NERC website due to confidentiality issues. DOE FY 20]} Annunf Performance Report I 1' I Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Power Marketing Administration Program: Southwestern Power Administration Website: Performance Goal: Annual Operating Cost Performance Provide power at the lowest possible cost by keeping total operation and maintenance cost per kilowatt?hour generated below the national median for public power Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met During FY 2011, cost per kilowatt-hour statistics are as follows: Southwestern: $00163 National industry average: $0.062 Therefore, Southwestern is less than the national industry average. 2010 lvlet During FY 2010, cost per kilowatt-hour statistics are as follows: Southwestern: $00143 National industry average: $0.052 Therefore, Southwestern is less than the national industry average. 2009 Met During FY 2009, cost per kilowatt-hour statistics are as follows: Southwestern: $00126 National industry average: $0.062 Therefore, Southwestern is less than the national industry average. 2008 Met During FY 2008, cost per kilowatt-hour statistics are as follows: Southwestern: $00130 National industry average: $00153 Therefore, Southwestern is less than the national industry average. 2007 Met During FY 2007, cost per kilowatt-hour statistics are as follows: Southwestern: $00126 National industry average: $0.013? Therefore, Southwestern is less than the national industry average. Documentation: APPA Selected Financial and Operating Ftatios of Public Power Systems, Annual Fteports, Energy Information Administration Form 1 Fleports, CBO Budget and Economic Outlook Forecast. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 112 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Power Marketing Administration Program: Southwestern Power Administration Website: Performance Goal: Repayment of the Federal Power in vestmenf Performance Ensure timer repayment of federal investment in accordance with DOE Order RA 6120.2 by maintaining unpaid investment (Ul) equal to or less than the allowable unpaid investment (AUI) Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met During FY 2011, Southwestern achieved the timely repayment of the federal investment. Achieving this target reflects Southwestern?s commitment to meet repayment of the federal investment, thereby achieving and maintaining financial integrity. 2010 lvlet During FY 2010, Southwestern achieved the timely repayment of the federal investment. Achieving this target reflects Southwestern?s commitment to meet repayment of the federal investment, thereby achieving and maintaining financial integrity. 2009 Met During FY 2009, Southwestern achieved 100.0% of planned repayment of the federal investment. Achieving this target reflects Southwestern?s commitment to meet repayment of the federal investment, thereby achieving and maintaining financial integrity 2008 lvlet During FY 2008, Southwestern achieved 100.0% of planned repayment of the federal investment. Achieving this target reflects Southwestern?s commitment to meet repayment of the federal investment, thereby achieving and maintaining financial integrity. 200? Met During FY 2007, Southwestern achieved 100.0% of planned repayment of the federal investment. Achieving this target reflects Southwestern?s commitment to meet repayment of the federal investment, thereby achieving and maintaining financial integrity. Documentation: FY2010 Power Repayment Studies. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 113 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Power Marketing Administration Program: Southwestern Power Administration Website: Performance Goal: System Performance NERO Rating Meet Control Performance Standards of and and meet or exceed industry averages. CPS1 measures a generating system's performance at matching supply to changing demand requirements and supporting desired system frequency in one minute increments. CPS2 measures a generating system's performance at limiting the magnitude of generation and demand imbalances in ten minute increments. Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met During FY 201 1, Southwestern achieved 8 out of 8 control compliance ratings. Southwestern's average annual results are 199.98 for CPS 1 8 99.82 for CPS 2. Achieving this target reflects Southwestern's ability to maintain acceptable power system operation for control area performance, thereby operating the power system efficiently and effectively. 2010 Met During FY 2010, Southwestern achieved 8 out of 8 control compliance ratings. Southwestern's average annual results are 199.99 for CPS 1 8 99.8? for CPS 2. Achieving this target reflects Southwestern's ability to maintain acceptable power system operation for control area performance, thereby operating the power system efficiently and effectively. 2009 Met During FY 2009, Southwestern achieved 8 out of 8 control compliance ratings. Southwestern's average annual results are 199.98 for CPS 1 8 99.83 for CPS 2. Achieving this target reflects Southwestern's ability to maintain acceptable power system operation for control area performance, thereby operating the power system efficiently and effectively. 2008 Met During FY 2008, Southwestern achieved 8 out of 8 control compliance ratings. Southwestern's average annual results are 199.49 for CPS 1 8 99.82 for CPS 2. Achieving this target reflects Southwestern's ability to maintain acceptable power system operation for control area performance, thereby operating the power system efficiently and effectively. 200? Met During FY 2007, Southwestern achieved 8 out of 8 control compliance ratings. Southwestern's average annual results are 199.28 for CPS 1 8 99.81 for CPS 2. Achieving this target reflects Southwestern's ability to maintain acceptable power system operation for control area performance, thereby operating the power system efficiently and effectively. Documentation: Control compliance Rating Report for 2000 through 2010. Data can be found at: DOE FY 20]} Anmmf Performance Report I 1' 4 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Power Marketing Administration Program: Southwestern Power Administration Website: Performance Goal: System Hetiabftity Performance Outages Effectively operate the transmission system to limit the number of accountable outages to no more than 3 annually Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met During FY 2011, Southwestern had no preventable customer outages. Achieving this target reflects Southwestern's ability to provide reliable service to customers each year, thereby maintaining power system reliability. 2010 lvlet During FY 2010, Southwestern had one preventable customer outage. Achieving this target reflects Southwestern's ability to provide reliable service to customers each year, thereby maintaining power system reliability. 2009 lvlet During FY 2009, Southwestern had no preventable customer outages. Achieving this target reflects Southwestern's ability to provide reliable service to customers each year, thereby maintaining power system reliability. 2008 lvlet During FY 2008, Southwestern had no preventable customer outages. Achieving this target reflects Southwestern's ability to provide reliable service to customers each year, thereby maintaining power system reliability. 200? lvlet During FY 200?, Southwestern had no preventable customer outages. Achieving this target reflects Southwestern's ability to provide reliable service to customers each year, thereby maintaining power system reliability. Documentation: Southwestern's Point of Delivery Incidents Log DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 1 1'5 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Power Marketing Administration Program: Western Area Power Administration Website: Performance Goal: Annual Operating Cost Performance Efficiency Performance: Provide power at the lowest possible cost by keeping total operation and maintenance expense per kilowatthour generated below the national median for public power ($0.080) Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met As calculated using Western's most recent audited financial statements, Western's FY 201 1 ratio of OBEM costs per generated ($0.019) is less the national median for public power 2010 Met As calculated using Western's most recent audited financial statements, Western's FY 2010 ratio of 08M costs per generated ($0.012) is less the national median for public power Documentation: Current American Public Power Association Selected Financial and Operating Ratios of Public Power Systems as compared to applicable program costs reported in Western's annual audited tinancial statements. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 116 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Power Marketing Administration Program: Western Area Power Administration Website: Performance Goal: Repayment of in vestmenf Performance Ensure unpaid investment (Ul) is equal to or less than the allowable unpaid investment (AUI) in accordance with DOE Order 6120.2 and Reclamation Law Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Collective repayment data for Western projects for FY 2011 indicate that Ul is equal to or less than AUI ($6.138 billionf$8.520 billion} 2010 Met Collective repayment data for Western projects for FY 2010 indicate that Ul is equal to or less than AUI ($6.218 billionf$8.930 billion}. 2009 Met Western's unpaid investment is equal to or less than the allowable unpaid investment {Ul= {in $Mjl. Achieving this target reflects Western's commitment to repay federal investment within required repayment periods, meeting our obligation to the US. Treasury. 2008 Met Western achieved its FY 2008 repayment ratio in that collective repayment data for the Uli?AUl ratio was equal to or less than 1.00. This supports Western's commitment to repay federal investment within required repayment periods, meeting our obligations to the U.S. Treasury. 200? Met Collective repayment data for Western?s projects through FY 2007' indicate that the ratio is on target to be equal to or less than 1.00. Documentation: Final FY 2010 Power Repayment Studies DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report I 1' Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Power Marketing Administration Program: Western Area Power Administration Website: Performance Goal: System Reiiabffr'ty Performance NERO Rating Meet North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERO) Control Performance Standards (CPS) of and and meet or exceed industry averages. measures a generating system's performance at matching supply to changing demand requirements and supporting desired system frequency in one minute increments. CPS2 measures a generating system's performance at limiting the magnitude of generation and demand imbalances in ten minute increments. Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual averages for CPS1 and were 184.16 and 91.38, respectively. Achieving this target reflects Western?s ability to operate the power system efficiently which contributes to the stability of the nation's integrated power grid. 2010 Met Annual averages for CPS1 and CPS2 were 1?8.03 and 98.45, respectively. 2009 Met All four Western control areas achieved a ?pass? rating for both and CPS2 for the year. Western's FY 2009 averages: 188.45 CPS2: 99.45 Achieving this target reflects Westerns ability to operate the power system efficiently which contributes to the stability of the nation?s. integrated power. grid. 2008 Met Western's FY 2008 CPS1 and CPS2 averages are 184.42 and 98.92, respectively. Balanced supply and demand reflect efficient power operations which contribute. to the. stability of the nation's integrated electric grid. 200? Met Overall Western FY 2007 CPS1 and 2 averages are: CPS1 - 181.08; CPS2 - 98.54. Balanced supply and demand ensures sage and stable electric power grid operation. Documentation: NERO Control Performance Report DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 1 1'8 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Power Marketing Administration Program: Western Area Power Administration Website: Performance Goal: System Performance Outages Accountable customer andfor transmission element outages will not exceed 25 for FY 2011 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Not Met For FY 2011, Western experienced 2? accountable outages against our target of 26 or less. Following formal incident investigation procedures, representatives from Operations, Maintenance and Safety reviewed each individual outage to determine the root cause, contributing factors, lessons learned, and to provide recommendations for improving processes or implementing procedures to prevent reoccurrence. A final report was prepared within 30 days for each incident. 2010 Met For FY 2010, Western experienced 11 accountable outages against our target of 2B or less. 2009 Met For FY2009, Western experienced 15 outages against our target of 26 or less. Achieving this target reflects Western?s ability to operate and maintain the power system effectively to ensure system reliability and dependable service to customers. 2008 Met For FY 2008, Western reported 22 accountable outages against our target of 2B or less. Achieving this target reflects our ability to effectively operate and maintain the power system to ensure dependable service to customers. 200? Met October-2, November-1, December-3, January-0, February-1, March-0, April-2, May-1, June-1, July-2, August - 1, September - 3. The annual total accountable customer andfor transmission element outages for Western is 1? for FY 2007'. Achieving this target reflects Western's ability to maintain power system reliability, thus providing dependable service to customers. Documentation: FY 2011 Accountable Outages Report DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 119 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Information Administration Program: Energy Information Administration Website: Performance Goal: Ouafity of 554 information Products 90% or more of customers are satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of EIA information Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met EIA actively solicits external feedback to gain a better understanding of who uses the agency?s information products, how they are used, and most importantly, whether they meet customers' diverse and evolving needs. This feedback spurs product innovation, which in turn supports the Department?s goal of leading the national conversation on energy. 2010 Met EIA believes that the ratings and comments from our customers provide us with important insights into how our information is used, who the customers are, what they are looking for, and areas for future improvements. This feedback helps EIA to continue to provide high-quality and relevant information. 2009 Met EIA believes that the ratings and comments from our customers provide us with important insights into how our information is used, who the customers are, what they are looking for, and areas for future improvements. This feedback helps EIA to continue to provide high-quality and relevant information. 2008 Met EIA believes that the ratings and comments from our customers provide us with important insights into how our information is used, who the customers are, what they are looking for, and areas for future improvements. This feedback helps EIA to continue to provide high-quality and relevant information. 200? Met EIA believes that the ratings and comments from our customers provide us with important insights into how our information is used, who the customers are, what they are looking for, and areas for future improvements. This feedback helps EIA to continue to provide high-quality and relevant information. Documentation: EIA conducted the annual web customer survey with OMB approval and the results are proof that the survey was conducted. The results are stored in the files of the Office of Communications and Outreach in EIA. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 120 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Energy Information Administration Program: Energy Information Administration Website: Performance Goal: Timeliness of IA information Products Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met As the nation?s premier source of energy information, customers rely on EIA for timely delivery of independent, impartial statistics and analyses. This reliability promotes efficient energy markets while also contributing to sound policymaking and public understanding of energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment. 2010 Met Many energy markets rely on EIA data being available on schedule, and by meeting these needs, EIA helps to promote efficient energy markets and, to a lesser extent, sound policy making and public understanding. Together, these help to promote a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy, both now and in the future. 2009 Met Many energy markets rely on EIA data being available on schedule, and by meeting these needs, EIA helps to promote efficient energy markets and, to a lesser extent, sound policy making and public understanding. Together, these help to promote a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy, both now and in the future. 2008 Met Many energy markets rely on EIA data being available on schedule, and by meeting these needs, EIA helps to promote efficient energy markets and, to a lesser extent, sound policy making and public understanding. Together, these help to promote a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy, both now and in the future. 200? Met Many energy markets rely on EIA data being available on schedule. In meeting these needs, EIA helps to promote efficient energy markets and, to a lesser extent, sound policy making and public understanding. Together, these help to promote a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy, both now and in the future. Documentation: Internal tracking: EIA selected which products to track, established a schedule, and is tracking the actual and scheduled release dates. The Quality Assurance Team within ElA?s Office of Energy Statistics verifies data and calculations and stores the file. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 121' Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Loan Programs Program: Loan Guarantees Website: Performance Goal: Annuai generation capacity from projects receiving DOE ioan guarantees that have achieved commerciai operations Cumulative generation capacity of 0.1 gigawatts in FY 2011 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met The LPO portfolio includes 10 renewable power generation projects that have reached financial closure and remain active; two of which have achieved commercial operations. Documentation: LPO website and internal LPO documentation. Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Loan Programs Program: Loan Guarantees Website: mgiilpoenerovoov Performance Goal: Annuai manufacturing capacity from projects receiving DOE toan guarantees that have achieved commerciai operations Cumulative manufacturing capacity of 0.2 GW in FY 2011 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Not Met Target was not met due to bankruptcy of one borrower under Section 1?05. Documentation: LPO website and internal LPO documentation. Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Loan Programs Program: Loan Guarantees Website: httg:iilgo.enerov.oovt Performance Goal: Estimated annuai 002 emissions reductions of projects receiving ioan guarantees that have achieved commerciai operations compared to business as usuai' energy generation Annual reduction of 200,000 tons of 002 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met 200,000+ achieved; avoided greenhouse gas emissions is a presidential goal and a benefit of supporting a portfolio of renewable and clean energy projects. Documentation: LPO website and internal LPO documentation. DOE FY 20]} Annuni Performance Report 122 Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Loan Programs Program: Loan Guarantees Website: Performance Goal: Loss Rate of ATVM Loans A loan loss rate 014% or less for loans issued under the ATVM program Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 lylet No losses were incurred in 2011. Documentation: LPO website and internal LPO documentation. Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Loan Programs Program: Loan Guarantees Website: Performance Goal: Loss Rate of Guaranteed Loans A loss rate 014% or less for guaranteed loans issued under Title XVII Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met As of September 30, 2011, one borrower of a loan guaranteed under Section 1T05 is in bankruptcy. Actual losses will be determined and reported after the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings. Documentation: LPO website and internal LPO documentation. Results: Strategic Goal: 1 Transforming our Energy Systems Office: Loan Programs Program: Loan Guarantees Website: httg?lgoeneroygoyf Performance Goal: Obligated Credit Subsidy Obligate 100% of Section 1705 Credit Subsidy before September 30, 2011 FY Target Commentary 201 1 Nol Met The DOE successfully deployed of over $1 8 billion to 28 clean energy projects under the Section 17'05 loan guarantee program using 7T?fo of available subsidy. Documentation: LPO website and internal LPO documentation. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 123 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Advanced Scientific Computing Research Website: http:waw.scienceenerngovHascr Performance Goal: Improve Computational Science Improve Computational Science Capabilities average annual percentage increase in the computational effectiveness (either by simulating the same problem in less time or simulating a larger problem in the same time) of a subset of application codes FY 2011 target: s100% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual goal met. Increased computational effectiveness of OMEN by NEMO 5 by 352%, LAMMPS by 200%, OSIRIS by 701%, and by 1500%. 2010 Met Annual goal met. Computational effectiveness of each application (TD-SLDA, POP, and Denovc] improved by more than 100% for the year (TD-SLDA by 211%; POP by 329.9% by 260%; and Denovo by of 2009 Met Annual goal met. Computational effectiveness of each application (CAM, RAPTOR, VislT, and improved by more than 100% for the year. 2008 Met The Gray XT4 cluster, Jaguar, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory?s National Center for Computational Sciences was used for the effort this year to improve performance of the following applications: and PFLOTRAN. Results indicate all applications improved over 100% against baseline. Reference Report: US. DOE SC Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research FY08 Joule Software Metric SC GG 3.12.5.2 Improve Computational Science Capabilities. 2007 Met -- Documentation: Quarterly and EOY: Test reports on selected codes. In the first Quarter of fiscal year, the Suite of applications, tools or libraries to be evaluated is proposed by ASCR to ASCAC. After the list is approved by ASCAC an initial set of. baseline science problemsfor each application, or. a baseline for scaleing. performance for the tools and libraries is defined in detail. The time to solution on each of these baselines, using the application software,.tcol or library. as ofthe beginning of the fiscal year is determined. Progress towards the 100% goal is determined by monitoring the time to solution. of the. baseline as the. application software, tool. or library is improved during the fiscal. year or the increase. inthe size or complexity of. the baseline science problem that is possible without increasing. the time. to. solution. Reports detailing these evaluations reside in the. files. of. the ASCR Office DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 124 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Advanced Scientific Computing Research Website: Performance Goal: Nationai Energy Research Scientific Computing Center Computing Focus usage of the primary supercomputer at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center on capability computing FY 2011 target: at least 35% of the computing time will be used by computations that require at least 1i8 (4,096 processors} of the NERSC resource Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual goal met. Averaged 49% of the of the time used on Franklin was used by jobs running 4,096 or more cores. 2010 Met Annual goal met. 517% of the time used on Franklin was used by jobs running with 4,096 or more processors. 2009 Met Annual goal met. Averaged over the year, 51.9% of the time used on Franklin was used by jobs running with 2,024 or more cores. 2008 Met of the year's computing time used at least 1i8 of the NE RSC resources. 200? Met Annual target of 619% was met. Increasing the use of primary supercomputer for large-scale problems enables the Office of Science to answer complex scientific questions sooner -- keeping U.S. research on the frontiers of science. Documentation: Quarterly and EOY: This data comes directly from the batch queue accounting system at NERSC. The Number of CPU hours accounted for by jobs that use at least US or the NE RSC resources (4096 processors} is divided by the total number of CPU hours delivered to all jobs in the batch system. Reports detailing this progress reside in the files of the ASCR Office DOE FY 20]} Performance Report 125 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Basic Energy Sciences Website: Performance Goal: BES Cones/ME Cost Schedule Cost?weighted mean percent variance from established cost and schedule baselines for major construction, upgrade, or equipment procurement projects FY 2011 target: cost and schedule variance are both less than 10% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual goal met. 1.8% (cost variance} and (schedule variance} References: Reports from the DOE Federal Project Directors on all BES construction projects reside in the files of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences 2010 Met Annual Goal met. 0.9% [cost variance} and 1.7% {schedule variance} References: Reports from the DOE Federal Project Directors on all BES construction projects reside in the files of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences 2009 Met Goal Met. 2.5% (cost variance} and {schedule variance} References: Reports from the DOE Federal Project Directors on all BES construction projects reside in the files of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences Final results for FY 2009 will be submitted when available {September 2009 PARS data not yet available}. 2008 Met 2.0% (cost variance} and (schedule variance}. 200? Not Met Annual target not met. Results: 6.8% {cost variance} and -1 1.0% {schedule variance}. Due to the FY 200? Continuing Resolution (H.J.R 20}, the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) project experienced a reduction of $7,?40,000, including $4,?40,000 in construction funds and $3,000,000 in Other Project Costs, and a six month delay in receiving FY 2007' appropriated funding, which has driven the LCLS project schedule variance 11.0% behind the original baseline. Controlling project costs and meeting construction schedules enables the Department to conduct world-class scientific research across a wide-range of disciplines. Documentation: BES Projects include those that have an approved performance baseline at the start of FY 2011 which include: SING-I, SING-II. and NSLS-IL Supporting data reside in the DOE Office of Engineering and Construction Management's (OECM, ME-50) Project Assessment and Reporting System (PARS) and with Basic Energy Science's Division of Scientific User Facilities DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 126 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Basic Energy Sciences Website: Performance Goal: BES Ops Achieve an average operation time of the scientific user facilities as a percentage of the total scheduled annual operating time of greater than 9 0% FY 2011 target: 90% of scheduled operating time Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Annual goal met. 101 3% (average annual operating time at BES facilities as a percentage of planned scheduled time; 36,366 actual total hours delivered to users versus 35,900 total planned hours} References: Final fourth quarter progress reports of FY 2011 operating hours submitted to BES by 8 BES user facilities {3 neutron sources and 5 light sources}. The actual delivered hours of the individual user facilities in FY1 1 were: NSLS 5,885; SSRL 4,7?5; ALS 4,916; APS 4,906; LCLS 3,925; HFIR 4,268; Lujan 2,691; and SNS 5,000 for a total of 36,366 hours. These facilities reports reside in the files of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences 2010 Met Annual Goal met. 101.1% {average annual operating time at BES facilities as a percentage of planned scheduled time; 32,562 actual total hours delivered to users versus 32,200 total planned hours} 2009 Met Goal Met. 103.5% (average annual operating time at BES facilities as a percentage of planned scheduled time; 31 ,?85 actual total hours delivered to users versus 30,?00 total planned hours] References: Final fourth quarter Joule progress reports of FY 2009 operating hours submitted to BES by 7 8E8 user facilities {3 neutron sources and 4 light sources). These facilities reports reside in the files of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences 2008 Met 101.9% (average annual operating time at BES facilities as a percentage of planned scheduled time; 29,13? actual total hours delivered to users versus 28,580 total planned hours). Achieving this target ensures full use of the seven scientific user facilities and justifies investments in these crucial facilities. 2007 Met Annual target met. Results: 102.1% {27,010 actual total hours delivered to users versus 26,450 total planned hours) Achieving this target ensures full use of the seven scientific user facilities and justifies investments in these crucial facilities. Documentation: Supporting documents consist of the required quarterly and annual reports submitted to BES by the BES user facilities at the completion of each quarter and at the end of the fiscal year. These final reports reside in the files of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences 22). The total planned operating hours for this goal is obtained from the planned operating hours of these individual user facilities in FY11: NSLS 5,400; SSRL 4,900; ALS 4,700; APS 5,000; LCLS 4,100; 3,900; Luian 3,000; and SNS 4,900 for a total of 35,900 hours 32,310 hours is DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 127 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Basic Energy Sciences Website: Performance Goal: Spatial Resolution Maintain spatial resolutions for imaging in the hard x?ray region of <100 nanometers and in the soft x?ray region of <18 nm, and spatial information limit for an electron microscope of 0.05 nanometers Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Annual goal met: Hard x-ray - 90 nanometers Soft x-ray - 15 nanometers Electron microscope - 0.05 nanometers References: Hard x-ray - The result was achieved at experimental station of the Advanced Photon Source at ANL. The report of the unpublished results resides at the Office of Basic Energy Sciences Soft x-ray - W. Chao, B. D. Harteneck, J. A. Liddle, E. H. Anderson, D. T. Attwood, "Soft X-ray microscopy at a spatial resolution better than 15nm," Nature, 435, 1210-1213 (2005) . Electron microscope - Rolf Erni, Marta D. Rossell, Christian Kisielowski, and Ulrich Dahmen, "Atomic-Resolution Imaging with a Sub-50-pm Electron Probe," Physical Review Letters 102, 096101 (2009). 2010 Met Annual goal met: Hard x-ray - 90 nanometers. Soft x-ray - 15 nanometers Electron microscope - 0.05 nanometers 2009 Met Goal Met. . Hard x-ray - 90 nanometers. Soft x-ray - 15 nanometers Electron microscope 0.05 nanometers References: Hard x?ray The result was achieved at experimental station of the Advanced Photon Source at ANL. The report of the unpublished results resides at the Office of Basic Energy Sciences Soft x?ray W. Chao, B. D. Harteneck, J. A. Liddle, E. H. Anderson, D. T. Attwood, "Soft X?ray microscopy at a spatial resolution better than 15nm," Nature, 435, 1210?1213 {2005) . Electron microscope Rolf Erni, Marta D. Rossell, Christian Kisielowski, and Ulrich Dahmen, "Atomic?Resolution Imaging with a Sub?50pm Electron Probe," Physical Review Letters 102, 096101 (2009). 2008 Met Hard x?ray 90 nanometers Soft x?ray 15 nanometers Electron microscope - 0.0?8 nanometers References: Hard x-ray - The result was achieved at experimental station of the Advanced Photon Source at ANL. The report of the unpublished results resides at the Office of Basic Energy Sciences Soft x-ray - W. Chao, B. D. Harteneck, J. A. Liddle, E. H. Anderson, D. T. Attwood, "Soft X-ray microscopy at a spatial resolution better than 15nm," Nature, 435, 1210-1213 {2005) . DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 128 Electron microscope P. D. Nellist, M. F. Chisholm, N. Dellby, O. L. Krivanek, M. F.Murfitt, Z. S. Szilagyi. A. R. Lupini, A. Borisevich, W. H. Sides 8. .J. Pennycook, "Direct imaging of a lattice," Science, 305,1741 {2004). 200? lvlet Annual target met. Results: Hard x?ray 90 nanometers; Soft x?ray 15 nanometers; Electron microscope 0.078 nanometers. This allows scientists to improve the clarity from which they can ?see? very small objects such as viruses or even atoms, which have a size on the scale of nanometers. Documentation: No further quantitative improvements are expected in these measures this year. Performance levels for spatial resolution have reached the maximum for the current suite of available instruments. This target is a measure of 30's intent to maintain the maximum level of performance for users of the current 80 facilities until the next generation of instruments and facilities becomes available at DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 129 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Basic Energy Sciences Website: Performance Goal: Temporal Resolution Maintain x?ray pulses that are <70 femtoseconds in duration and have an intensity of >1 trillion photons per pulse {:4012 photonslpulse) Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Annual goal met. Achieved X?ray pulses of less than 70 femtoseconds in duration with an intensity of greater than 1 trillion photons per pulse. References: Results are from the Linac Coherent Light Source at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory "Science Begins at the World?s Most Powerful X-ray Laser," SLAC Press Release, November 2, 2009}: P. Emma, et al., "First lasing and operation of an free-electron laser," Nature Photcnics 4, 641 (September 2010}; see Table 1. 2010 Met Annual Goal met: 7'0 femtosecond pulses with 100 million photons per pulse. References: Results are from the Sub- Picosecond Pulse Source at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center: A. M. Lindenberg, et al., "Atomic-Scale Visualization of Inertial Dynamics", Science 308, 392 (2005); A. L. Cavalieri, et al., "Clocking Femtosecond Rays", Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 114801 {2005}; K. J. Gaffney, et al., "Observation of Structural Anisotropy and the Onset of Liquidlike Motion During the Nonthermal Melting of InSb", Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 125701 {2005}. 2009 Met Goal met. 7'01emtosecond pulses with 100 million photons per pulse References: Results are from the Sub-Picosecond Pulse Source at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center: A. M. Lindenberg. et al., "Atomic-Scale Visualization of Inertial Dynamics", Science 308, 392 {2005); A. L. Cavalieri, et al., "Clocking Femtosecond Rays", Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 114801 (2005}; K. J. Gaffney, et al., "Observation of Structural Anisotropy and the Onset of Liquidlike Motion During the Nonthermal Melting of InSb", Phys. Rev. Lett. 95. 125701 (2005f 2008 Met 70 femtosecond pulses with 100 million photons per pulse References: Results are from the Sub-Picosecond Pulse Source at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center: A. M. Lindenberg, et al., "Atomic-Scale Visualization of Inertial Dynamics", Science 308, 392 (2005); A. L. Cavalieri, et al., "Clocking Femtosecond. Rays", Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 11480112005); K. J. Gaffney, et al., "Observation. of Structural Anisotropy and the Onset of Liquidlike Motion During. the Nonthermal Melting. of InSb", Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 125?01. {2005). 200? Met Annual target met. 7?0 femtosecond pulses with 100 million. photons per pulse. Achieving. this target allows scientists to "see" fast events, such as. chemical reactions and the folding of proteins. Documentation: No further quantitative. improvements are expected in these measures this year. Performance levels for temporal resolution have reached the maximum for the current suite. of available instruments. This target is a measure of 80's. intent to maintain the. maximum level of performance for users of the current SC facilities until the next generation of instruments and facilities becomes available at DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 130 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Biological and Environmental Research Website: Performance Goal: BER lmpro ve Climate Models Develop a coupled climate model with fully interactive carbon and sulfur cycles, as well as dynamic vegetation to enable simulations of aerosol effects, carbon chemistry, and carbon sequestration by the land surface and oceans and the interactions between the carbon cycle and climate FY 2011 target: Earth system model to be used in generating scenarios for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report and provide integrated aerosol sub-model that includes direct and indirect forcing Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual goal met. The document titled, "Estimate of Future Aerosol Direct and Indirect Effects" can be found at 1r'doe-sc-asr-1 1-004.pdf. The report summarizes results of a future IPCC ARS (RC P85) scenario. 2010 Met Annual goal met. A new parameterization for aerosol effects on cloud drizzle for incorporation into atmospheric modelshas been delivered. 2009 Met Annual goal met. 2008 Met Progress is reported in Atmospheric Properties from the 2008 Niamey Deployment and Climate Simulation with a Geodesic Grid Coupled Climate Model. A decade-long control simulation using geodesic grid coupled climate model at a resolution 250 km was completed and compared with observations. The coupled model maintains a fairly realistic state after 10 simulated years. A single data file includes the time-series of aerosol and dust properties for the 2006 Niamey deployment. The data and documentation are available from the ARM Climate Research Facility Archive 200? Met Annual target met. The new cloud microphysics scheme is further tested in CAMS climate simulations and results are evaluated using the ARM measurements. The new scheme leads to the improvement of the cloud fraction and reduction of temperature bias in the tropical tropopause. The predicted ice water content in the CAM3 with the new scheme is in better agreement with the ARM observation at the SGP site for the mixed-phase clouds and with the Aura MLS data than that in the standard CAMS. Achieving this target moves the program closer to climate simulations that will help determine energy policy relative to global climate change. Documentation: Quarterly E-mails from the designated performers reporting the research results {per documented control process}.. EOY E-mails reporting the results and publicationlavailability of the results (per documented control process}. Report is available at: metrics DOE FY 20} 1 Performance Report 131' Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Biological and Environmental Research Website: Performance Goal: Ciimate Ops The achieved operation time of the (Climate Change Research scientific user facilities) as a percentage of the total scheduled annual operating time is greater than 98%. FY 2011 target: 98% of total scheduled operating time (annual: 100% 8,219.4 hours; 98% 7,884 hours} Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Annual goal met. Achieved 8,109.5 hours. 2010 Met Annual Goal met. The ARM facility operated for 8,178 hours. which exceeds the annual goal of 7,726 hours. 2009 Met Annual goal met. 2008 Met The ARM facility operated for 8,320 hours, and thus exceeded the annual goal by 594 hours. 200? Met The FY 2007 annual target met; achieved an average of 104%. Achieving this target, scientists can optimally use the faciltv?s capability. Documentation: Quarterly E?mails reporting the progress (per documented control process). EOY E-mails reporting the results and data availability {per documented control process}. E-mails reside at: DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 132 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Biological and Environmental Research Website: Performance Goal: Determine Scalability of Laboratory Fiesoits in Fieici Experiments Determine the dominant processes controlling the fate and transport of contaminants in subsurface environments and develop quantitative numerical models to describe contaminant mobility at the field scale FY 2011 target: Refine subsurface transport models by developing computational methods to link important processes impacting contaminant transport at smaller scales to the field scale Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual goal met. Four reports were prepared describing advances in computational methods to describe the major processes controlling contaminant mobility in subsurface environments at the field scale. The full text is available at the following weblink: 1 .html 2010 Ivlet Annual goal met. A report that outlines a new experimental design that will better account for site complexity is posted at: 2009 Met Annual goal met. 2008 Ivlet Goal met. Identified the critical redox reactions and metabolic pathways involved in the transformationi sequestration of at least one key DOE contaminant, uranium, in a field environment. See the reports available on 200? Met Implementation Plan progress report from the Oak Ridge Integrated Field Challenge project announced in the first quarter of FY2007 is posted at Success represents incremental progress toward determining the dominant processes controlling the fate and transport of contaminants in subsurface environments and developing quantitative numerical models to describe contaminant mobility at the field scale. Documentation: Quarterly E-mails from the designated performers reporting the research results and field site experiment results (per documented. control process}. EOY E-mails. reporting. the results. and publicationiavailability of the results (per documented. control process}. E-mails reside. at: andior. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 133 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Biological and Environmental Research Website: Performance Goal: Environmental Facility Ops Achieved operation time of the {Environmental Remediation scientific user facility} EMSL as a percentage of the total scheduled annual operating time is greater than 98% FY 2011 target: 98% of total scheduled operating time (annual: 100% 4259; 98% 41?4} Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual goal met. EMSL achieved 424? operational hours and has met the annual goal of 41??r total annual operating hours. The report is available on 2010 lvlet For the year to date, EMSL has achieved 4329 operational hours and exceeds the annual goal of 4265 hours. 2009 lvlet Annual goal met. EMSL achieved 4376.5 operational hours. 2008 lvlet For the year to date, EMSL achieved 434D operational hours and has met the annual goal of >98?fo of 4385 total possible operational hours. 200? lvlet Annual target met; achieved an average of 99.9%. Achieving this target, scientists can optimally use the tacilty's capability. Documentation: Quarterly E-mails reporting the progress (per documented control process}. EOY E-mails reporting the results and data availability {per documented control process}. E-mails reside at: DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report [34 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Biological and Environmental Research Website: Performance Goal: Increase the rate and decrease the cost of DNA sequencing Increase by 10% the number (in billions} of high quality {less than one error in 10,000) bases of DNA from microbial and model organism genomes sequenced the previous year, and decrease by 10% the cost (base pairfdollar} to produce these base pairs from the previous year?s actual results FY 2011 target: Sequence 6,644 billion base pairs at a rate of 78,?82 bpf$1, based on FY10 actual of 6,040 billion base pairs at a rate of 8?,536 bpf$1 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual goal met. The JGI sequenced 29,903 billion base pairs of high quality DNA, exceeding the target goal, at a rate of 427,186 bpf$1. 2010 Exceeded Annual goal met. JGI exceeded the pair production with 6.04 Trillion base pairs of DNA were sequenced. JGI also exceeded the base pair produced per dollar: actual was 8?,536 bpf$1 compared to a goal of 15,942 bpf$1. 2009 Met Goal met. 1003.9 billion base pairs of high quality DNA sequenced, {representing 39??ch of the yearly target) at 15,430 bpr$. 2008 Met Sequenced 125.51 billion base pairs at a rate 2350 bpf$ 200? Not Met Annual target not met. 38.95 Billion bases {979?s of goal} achieved. However the cost milestone was achieved: JGI produced 7?14 base pairs [vice goal of 644] per Achieving this target increases our body of knowledge about DNA from which scientists hope to find new ways to treat or avoid illness, as well as develop new pharmaceutical and agricultural products, energy sources, industrial processes, and solutions to a variety of environmental problems. Documentation: Quarterly E-mails reporting the progress of actual counts of base pairs sequenced {per documented control process}. EOY E-mails reporting the results and data availability {per documented control process). The number 01 base pairs will be divided by the total funding to the Joint Genome Institute to calculate the cost of DNA sequencing. Joint Genome Institute: DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 135 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Biological and Environmental Research Website: Performance Goal: Life Sci Facifity 0,05 The achieved operation time of the (Biological System Science user facility) JGI as a percentage of the total scheduled annual operating time is greater than 88%. FY 2011 target: 98% of total scheduled operating time (annual: 100% 8,400; 98% 8,232) Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual goal met. JGI operational for 8?80 hours, 104% of the target annual goal. 2010 Met Annual goal met. JGI operated at 104% of scheduled operating time (actual hours were 8,712, scheduled hours 8,400}. 2009 Met Annual goal met. The PGF achieved 8826 operational hours. 2008 Not Met JGI operating hours were or 94% of goal (8,232}. This reflects the December shutdown for ergonomic safety. 200? Met Annual target met; achieved an average of 102%. Achieving this target, scientists can optimally use the facilty?s capability Documentation: Quarterly E-mails reporting the progress (per documented control process}. EOY E-mails reporting the results and data availability {per documented control process}. E-mails reside at: DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 136 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Fusion Energy Sciences Website: Performance Goal: FES Const?MlE Cost 8: Schedule Cost?weighted mean percent variance from established cost and schedule baselines for the NSTX Upgrades MIE kept to less than 10% FY .2011 target: cost and schedule variance are both less than 10% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Annual goal met. 2008 Data Not This annual target was closed out due to the cancellation of the National Compact Stellaratcr Experiment (NCSX) by the Available Office of Science in May 2008. 200? Not Met Goal Not Met. NCSX is assessed as "red" because it was unable to meet the currently approved baseline. Controlling project costs and meeting construction schedules enables the Department to conduct world-class scientific research across a wide-range of disciplines. Documentation: CD-2 for the HST): Upgrades MIE project is expected in December 2010. Information is available in the PARS II System. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 137 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Fusion Energy Sciences Website: Performance Goal: FES Facility Based Experiments Conduct experiments on the major fusion facilities (Dill?D, Alcator CMod, NSTX) leading toward the predictive capability for burning plasmas and configuration optimization FY 2011 target: Improve the understanding of the physics mechanisms responsible for the structure of the pedestal and compare with the predictive models described in the companion theory milestone. Perform experiments to test theoretical physics models in the pedestal region on multiple devices over a broad range of plasma parameters collisionality, beta, and aspect ratio}. Detailed measurements of the height and width of the pedestal will be performed, augmented by measurements of the radial electric field. The evolution of these parameters during the discharge will be studied. Initial measurements of the turbulence in the pedestal region will also be performed to improve understanding of the relationship between edge turbulent transport and pedestal structure. Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Annual goal met. Experiments were conducted on Dill-D, NSTX, and C-Mod. Multi-machine comparisons of experimental data with several theoretical models were performed to clarify the relative importance of various physics mechanisms in the plasma edge pedestal. Pedestal data over a wide range of plasma parameters were analyzed with multiple codes, and edge turbulence was measured to elucidate the role of turbulent transport in establishing the pedestal structure. The joint research report summarized the understanding gained. the implications for and recommendations for future work. 2010 Met Annual goal met. Experiments were conducted on Dill-D, NSTX, and C-lvlod. Fundamental characteristics of heat transport and divertor heat flux profiles in the tokamak scrape- off layer plasma were examined. The results achieved were used to strengthen the basis for projecting divertor conditions in and to identify critical research areas to improve the extrapolation. 2009 Met Goal met. Experiments were conducted on Dill-D, NSTX, and C-Mod. Fundamental processes governing particle balance were identified. The results achieved were used to improve extrapolation to planned operation. 2008 Met Good progress was made in all areas of rotation physics as a result of the experiments on NSTX, Dill-D, and C-Mod. Completely new phenomena were discovered, and indications from former experiments were confirmed and extended. Common underlying physics elements controlling the rotation dynamics and momentum transport were identified in the three experiments. Greater coupling with theory was also accomplished, giving increased confidence in extrapolation to and burning plasmas in general. The final report summarized the data and analysis contributing to estimating the magnitude, and assessing the impact, of rotation on 200? Met Annual target met. Completed a series of energetic particle?related experiments and identified three Alfven Eigenmodes. Carried out a comprehensive analysis of the behavior of the modes and their effect on the confinement of fast particles, and compared the results with published theoretical models. These experiments provide critical data on plasma behavior needed to eventually predict the performance of burning plasmas. Documentation: Verification and validation website is at: This site provides quarterly progress reports and documentation of achievement for this annual target; results will be updated on a timely basis. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 138 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Fusion Energy Sciences Website: Performance Goal: FES Operations Average achieved operational time of major national fusion facilities as a percentage of total planned operational time of greater than 90% FY 2011 target: 90% of scheduled operating time Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Not Met Annual goal not met. Dill-D completed 14.5 weeks of experiments on September 28 (103% of planned 14 weeks}. C- Mod completed 14.5 weeks of experiments on April 6 {97% of planned 14 weeks). Due to a toroidal field coil failure in the fourth quarter, NSTX was only able to complete 4.2 weeks of experiments out of the planned 14 weeks A total of 33.2 weeks of operations was completed out of the planned total of 43, representing achieved operating time and falling short of the 90% target. 2010 Met Annual goal met. A total of 45.6 weeks of baseline operations exceeded the target of 33 weeks {90% of planned operating time of 42 weeks.) - Dill-D completed 15.2 weeks of experiments on April 6 {plus 3 additional weeks supported with Recovery Act funding). - NSTX completed 14.4 weeks of experiments on September 24 (plus 1 additional week supported with Recovery Act funding). - C-Mod completed 16 weeks of experiments on September 10 {plus 5 additional weeks supported with Recovery Act funding). 2009 Met Annual goal met. Dill-D completed 14 weeks of experiments on July 27. NSTX completed 11 weeks of experiments on July 7. C-Mod completed 9.1 weeks of experiments on September 25. A total of 34.1 weeks of operations exceeded the target of 34 weeks (90% of planned operating time.) 2008 Met Dill-D completed 19 weeks of experiments on August 13. NSTX completed 16.6 weeks of experiments on July 14. C- Mod completed 15.? weeks of experiments on May 23. A total of 51.3 weeks of operations exceeded the target of 51 weeks. 2007 Met Annual target met. A total of 40.1 weeks of operations exceeded the target of 35 weeks; 1 14.6% with ?Annual target met. Dill-D completed 12.8 weeks of experiments on August 8. NSTX finished 12.6 weeks of research operations on June 22. C-Mod completed 14.? weeks of experiments on August 31. A total of 40.1 weeks of operations exceeded the target of 35 weeks or facilities operated at 114.6% of scheduleiplanned operations.A total of 40.1 weeks of operations exceeded the target of 35 weeks; 1 14.6% 90%. Documentation: Verification and validation website is at: This site provides quarterly progress reports and documentation of achievement for this annual target; results will be updated on a timer basis. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 139 Strategic Goal: al 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Fusion Energy Sciences Website: Performance Goal: FES Simulation Resolution Continue to increase resolution in simulations of plasma phenomena optimizing confinement and predicting the behavior of burning plasmas require improved simulations of edge and core plasma phenomena, as the characteristics of the edge can strongly affect core confinement FY 201i target: A focused analytic theory and computational effort, including large-scale simulations, will be used to identify and quantify relevant physics mechanisms controlling the structure of the pedestal. The performance of future burning plasmas is strongly correlated with the pressure at the top of the edge transport barrier [or pedestal height). Predicting the pedestal height has proved challenging due to a wide and overlapping range of relevant spatiotemporal scales, geometrical complexity, and a variety of potentially important physics mechanisms. Predictive models will be developed and key features of each model will be tested against observations, to clarify the relative importance of various physics mechanisms, and to make progress in developing a validated physics model for the pedestal height. Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual goal met. This work improved our knowledge of the physical mechanisms responsible for the properties and characteristics of the H-mode pedestal. In addition to clarifying the roles of the various physical processes involved, it also led to the improvement of various simulation codes since they had to be upgraded to model data under the challenging conditions of the pedestal. Among the specific benefits of this work was increasing confidence in the predictive capability of the widely-used peeling-ballooning theory. 2010 lvlet Annual goal met. The 2010 effort signi?cantly advanced our predictive understanding of toroidal momentum transport and rotation, including intrinsic rotation. It established that toroidal momentum transport is driven by parallel and perpendicular Reynolds stresses, clari?ed the role of residual stress and other off-diagonal contributions to the momentum flux and their role in driving intrinsic rotation, and identi?ed several mechanisms responsible for the symmetry breaking creating. the residual stress. 2009 Met Goal was met. High resolution simulations of edge plasma turbulence advanced our understanding of H-mode physics. 2008 Met The simulations of ITEFt-relevant modeling of lower hybrid current drive experiments on Alcator C-lvlod were done with 204? poloidal modes and 980 radial elements. These new results were published in "Communications in Computer Physics" in 2008. 2007 lvlet Annual target met. Analyzed possible ITER reversed shear discharges. Looked at a variety of plasma states to determine the linear stability of toroidal mode number n=1?15 TAE modes._ With this information, prepared a comprehensive review of the TAE energetic particle stability of discharges in three operating regimes. Achieving this target allows scientists to. determine which instabilities are. expected to be observed in This. is the starting point to measuring these instabilities and determining their impact on ITER. Documentation: Verification and validation website is at: This site provides quarterly progress reports and documentation of achievement for this annual target; results will be updated on a timely basis. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 140 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: High EnergyI Physics Website: Performance Goal: Detector Deliver within 20% of baseline estimate a total integrated amount of data {in inverse picobarns to the CDF and D?Zero detectors at the Tevatron FY 2011 target: Total is 2,000 pb'1, within 20% is 1,600 po'1 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual goal met. Achieved 2,546 plo'1 2010 Met Delivered 2,47? pb'1 2009 Met Annual goal met. Achieved 1,939.42 2008 Met Met goal. Tevatron delivered 1,?85 pa1 for the year. 200? Met Annual target met.Tevatron delivered 1,311 pb'1 to CDF and D?Zero. Achieving this target produces experimental data that advances our knowledge of the nature of fundamental particles and the physical laws that govern matter, energy, space and time Documentation: This page, ?Quarterly Performance Numbers,? lists the number of inverse picobarns for each quarter. Target performance is determined from the average integated luminosity {average of GDP and D-Zero). DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 141' Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: High Energy Physics Website: Performance Goal: HEP Coast/ME Cost and Schedule Achieve less than 10% for both the cost?weighted mean percentage variance from established cost and schedule baselines for major construction, upgrade, or equipment procurement projects Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual goal met. GPI varience: 97%; SPI varience: 98% 2010 lvlet All projects met the required variances for the year. 2009 lvlet Annual goal met. CPI SPI: 7.4% 2008 lvlet Cost weighted average variences for Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiment and Dark Energy Survey is 1.04 for cost and 0.95 for schedule. 2007' lvlet Annual target met. Cost variance for ATLAS is Cost variance for CMS is +1 Total project cost?weighted average is +1 Schedule variance for both ATLAS and CMS is less than Therefore, the total project cost? weighted average is less than Controlling project costs and meeting construction schedules enables the Department to conduct world-class scientific research across a wide-range of disciplines. Documentation: Derived from Quarterly Project Reports for the following projects: 1. 2. Reactor Neutrino Detector; 3. Dark Energy Survey. Cost and schedule variance calculated by Earned Value for each project is averaged, weighted by the Total Project Cost for that project. Supporting documentation resides in the files of the HEP Office aweb site is under development. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 142 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: High Energy Physics Website: Performance Goal: HEP Ops Achieve greater than 80% average operation time of the scientific user facilities (the Fermilab Tevatron) as a percentage of the total scheduled annual operating time Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual goal met. Achieved 81% of scheduled operating time. 2010 lvlet Uptime for the year was 89.4%. 2009 lvlet Annual goal met. Achieved 83.7% of scheduled operating time. 2008 lvlet lvlet goal. Fermi had 15.8% and SLAC had 14.8% unscheduled downtime for the year. The weighted averag is 15.4% 200? lvlet Annual target met. Fermi operation time was 83% in FY07 and SLAC operation time was 81%. Overall HEP average is 82%. Achieving this target ensures full use of the HEP scientific user facilities and justifies investments in these crucial facilities. Documentation: Derived from letters from Lab Directors or designee. Fermi data are reported at The scientific user facilities and scheduled hours: - Fermilab Tevatron, 5500 for a total of 5040 hours (4400 hours is Unscheduled downtime reported by each facility is averaged, weighted by the Facility Operations cost. Facility Operations costs are defined in the Facilities Summary section of the HEP FY 2008 budget submission. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 143 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: High EnergyI Physics Website: Performance Goal: HEP Detector Measure within 20% of the total integrated amount of data {in protons on?target) delivered to the detectors using the NuMl facility FY 2011 target: x1020 protons on target to the MINOS. (80% is 2.2 1020} Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual goal met. Measured 2.21MBEU protons on target. 2010 Met Measured 3.2 10?? protons on target. 2009 Met Annual goal met. Achieved protons?on?target. 2008 Met Met goal. Total protons on the NuMl target was 1 .97 for the year. 200? Met Annual target met. NuMl delivered 1.9 protons?on?target. Achieving this target produces experimental data that advances our knowledge of the nature of fundamental particles and the physical laws that govern matter, energy. space and time. Documentation: This page, "Quarterly Performance Numbers," lists the number of protons-on-target for each quarter. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 144 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Nuclear Physics Website: Performance Goal: ATLAS Detectors Achieve at least 80% of the integrated delivered beam used effectively for all experiments run at each of the Argonne Tandem Linac Accelerator System and the Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam facilities measured as a percentage of the scheduled delivered beam considered effective for each facility Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual Goal lvlet. Percentage of integrated delivered beam considered effective for ATLAS and 2010 lvlet Annual goal met. Percentage of integrated delivered beam considered effective for ATLAS and HRIBF 2009 Not Met Annual goal not met. Annual goal was met for AN but not for 2008 lvlet Goal met. Ftecorded 43.? billion events at ATLAS and 1? billion events at 200? lvlet Annual Target met. Achieved 27.5 billion events at ATLAS and billion events at Scientists accelerate and collide radioactive and stable beams on targets to: investigate new regions of nuclear structure: studying interactions in nuclear matter like those occurring in neutron stars; and determining the reactions that created the nuclei of the chemical elements inside stars and supernovae. Documentation: The percentage of integrated delivered beam used effectively by the experiments is determined by the experimenters that are collecting data through a survey. Records of the fractional amount of beam that satisfies the experimenters' requirements are documented along with the criteria used and how the beam is monitored and kept at each laboratory. Achieving 100% of integrated delivered beam that was used effectively means that 100% of the annual beam allocated to the experiments satisfied the experimenters' criteria for producing useful data. Quarterly: E-mail from ANL and ORNL management to NP program office reporting the cumulative percentage fractional integrated delivered beam achieved for that quarter. EOY: Official letters from ANL and management to NP Office reporting and certifying the total percentage integrated delivered beam achieved for the year. Documentation resides in the Office of Nuclear Physics (SO-26) files. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 145 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Nuclear Physics Website: Performance Goal: CEBAF detector Achieve at least 80% of the integrated delivered beam used effectively for experimental research in each of Halls A, and at the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) measured as a percentage of the scheduled delivered beam considered effective for each Hall Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual goal met. The integrated delivered beam used effectively that meets the 80% goal was 101% for Hall A . 70% for Hall B, and 82% for Hall C. This averages to 84%. 2010 Not Met Annual goal not met. The values of the 3 Halls at GEBAF are averaged for an End of the Year result of 68%. 2009 Not Met Annual goal not met. Annual goal was met for Halls A and B, but not met for Hall C. 2008 lvlet Goal met. Recorded 3.2 billion events in Hall 13.7 billion events in Hall and 3.28 billion events in Hall C. 200? lvlet Annual Target met. Recorded 2.49 billion events in Hall A, 12.42 billion events in Hall B, and 3.01 billion events in Hall C.Achieving this target allows scientists to study the structure of the nucleon and light nuclei. These accomplishments allow precise measurements of fundamental properties of the proton, neutron and simple nuclei for comparison with theoretical calculations to provide a quantitative understanding of the quark sub-structure. Documentation: The percentage of integrated delivered beam used effectively by the experiments in each Hall is determined by the collection of data meeting the experimenter's requirements. Records of the fractional amount of beam that satisfies the experimenters requirements are documented along with the criteria used and how the beam is monitored and kept at the laboratory. The values from each Hall are then averaged for the end of year result. Achieving 100% of integrated delivered beam that was used effectively means that 100% of the annual beam allocated to the experiments satisfied the experimenters' criteria for producing useful data. Quarterly: Email from TJNAF management to NP program office reporting the cumulative percent fractional integrated delivered beam achieved for Hall A, B, at CEBAF for that quarter. EOY: Official letter from TJNAF management to NP Office reporting and certifying the total percentage integrated delivered beam in Hall A, B, at CEBAF achieved for the year. The values from each Hall are then averaged for the end of year result. . Documentation resides in the Office of Nuclear Physics (SC-28) files. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 146 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Nuclear Physics Website: Performance Goal: Heavy?ton Collision Events Achieve at least 80% of the projected integrated heavy?ion collision luminosity for each of the PHENIX and STAR experiments at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, where the projected values take into account anticipated collider performance and detector data-taking efficiencies Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Annual goal met. The cumulative projected integrated heavy-ion collision luminosity achieved by STAR was 142% and 123% for PHENIX. 2010 lvlet Annual goal met. Cumulative percentage of delivered beam considered effective: STAR 229% and PH ENIX 199%. 2008 Met PH ENIX sampled 159,000 million heavy-ion collision events and STAR recorded 6?.2 million events. 200? lvlet Annual Target met. Sampled 5.100 million events in and STAR recorded 86.6 million events. Achieving this target allows scientists to study heavy-ion collision events that create new forms of hot, dense nuclear matter and to probe their properties. Documentation: The percentage of projected integrated heavy-ion collision luminosity considered effective by PHENIX and STAR is determined by the collection of data meeting the experimenter's requirements. Records of the fractional amount of beam that satisfies the experimenters' requirements are documented along with the criteria used and how the beam is monitored and kept at the laboratory. Achieving 100% of integrated delivered beam that was used effectively means that 100% of the annual beam allocated to the experiments satisfied the experimenters' criteria for producing useful data. Quarterly: Email from BNL management to NP program office reporting the cumulative percent fractional projected integrated heavy-ion collision luminosity sampled by each PHENIX and STAR experiments at RHIC for that quarter. . EOY: Official letter from BNL management to NP Office reporting and certifying the total percentage of projected integrated heavy-ion collision luminosity sampled by each PHENIX and STAR experiments at RHIC for the year. Documentation resides in the Office of Nuclear Physics (SC-26) files. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 147 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Nuclear Physics Website: Performance Goal: NP Consa?MlE Cost Schedule Achieve within 10% for both the cost?weighted mean percentage variance from established cost and schedule baselines for major construction, upgrade, or equipment rocurement projects Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Annual goal met: CPI 0.97, SPI 0.98 2010 Met Annual goal met: CPI: 0.95, SPI 0.98 2009 Met Annual goal met: CPI: 0.98, SPI 0.95 2008 Met The 12 Ge?v? project is within 10% of the cost and schedule variance. Achieved a value of 1.02% schedule variance and 0.98% cost variance based on the August 2008 report. Documentation: Derived from the Report preceding the end of the quarter for the following projects: 12 CEBAF Upgrade Cost and schedule variance calculated by Earned Value for each project is averaged. weighted by the Total Project Cost for that project. Supporting documentation resides in the files of the ONP DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 148 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Nuclear Physics Website: Performance Goal: NP Facility Ops Achieve at least 80% average operation time of the scientific user facilities as a percentage of the total scheduled annual operating time Results: FY Target Commentary 281 1 Met Annual goal met. NP user facilities achieved 88.4% of scheduled operating time. 2010 lvlet Annual goal met. NP facilities operated at 88.1% for the year. 2009 lvlet Annual goal met. 2808 lvlet NP user facilities (ATLAS, HRIBF, and achieved 88% reliability of the uptimefscheduled time. 200? lvlet Annual Target met. NP user facilities (ATLAS, HRIBF, and CEBAF) achieved an average of 91% reliability of the uptimer?scheduled time for the year Achieving this target, scientists can optimally use the facilty's capability and optimize operation time studying nuclear physics. Documentation: Ouarterly: Emails from ANL (ATLAS), BNL ORNL (HRIBF), and TJNAF management to NP Office with statistics regarding breakout of beam hours {per documented control process); NP program office worksheet showing calculations and compiled average. The total estimated operating hours for ATLAS, RHIC, and CEBAF is 18,400 hours (80% is 14,?20 hours). The achieved operation time of a facility as a percentage of the total scheduled annual operating time is calculated as follows: Operation Time (Actual Operating Hours} divided by (Actual Operating Hours Actual unscheduled downtime) where {Actual Operating Hours} {Hours for Research Hours for Beam Studies Hours for Tuninngetup). EOY: Official letters from ANL BNL ORNL (HHIBF), and TJNAF management to NP Office reporting and certifying annual achieved operation time of the user facility (per documented control process); NP program office worksheet showing subsequent calculation and compiled average of the achieved operation time as a percent of total scheduled annual operating time. Documentation resides in the Office of Nuclear Physics files. This target, a measure of the reliability of NP facilities, is met when the average of the calculated percentages is greater than 80%. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 149 Strategic Goal: 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Office: Science Program: Nuclear Physics Website: Performance Goal: Proton Coffision Events Achieve at least 80% of the projected integrated proton?proton collision luminosity for each of the PHENIX and STAR experiments at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, where the projected values take into account anticipated collider performance and detector data-taking efficiencies Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Not Met Annual goal not met. Proton running completed for this FY with the cumulative percentage of projected integrated proton-proton collision luminosity for STAR at 38% and 45% for PHENIX, missing the EOY goal due to equipment failures. 2010 Met Annual goal met. Cumulative percentage of delivered beam considered effective: STAR 229% and PH ENIX 190%. 2009 Not Met Annual goal not met. PHENIX exceeded its annual goal with 90% but STAR did not with a result of 65.4%. The STAR experiment's projected enhancement in the accelerator's proton beam luminosity for STAR was not realized. Reference: Email from Steve Vigdor submitted to NP Documentation: The percentage of projected integrated proton-proton collision luminosity considered effective by PHENIX and STAR is determined by the collection of data meeting the experimenter's requirements. Records of the fractional amount of beam that satisfies the experimenters? requirements are documented along with the criteria used and how the beam is monitored and Kept at the laboratory. Achieving 100% of integrated delivered beam that was used effectively means that 100% of the annual beam allocated to the experiments satisfied the experimenters' criteria for producing useful data. Quarterly: Email from BNL management to NP program office reporting the cumulative percent fractional projected integrated proton-proton collision luminosity sampled by each PHENIX and STAR experiments at RHIC for that quarter. Official letter from BNL management to NP Office reporting and certifying the total percentage of projected integrated proton-proton collision luminosity sampled by each PHENIX and STAR experiments at RHIC for the year. Documentation resides in the Office of Nuclear Physics files. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 150 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: National Nuclear Security Administration {NNSAVWeapons Activities Program: Directed Stockpile Work Website: stockpilehtm Performance Goal: LEP Production Costs Post Budget Target: Cumulative percent reduction in projected WTS warhead production costs per warhead from established validated baseline, as computed and reported annually by the WTB LEP Cost Control Board (Efficiency Measure} FY 2011 target: 1% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Not Met Did not achieve the cumulative annual target of 1.0% reduction of projected warhead production cost per warhead from the established baseline (actual 0.70 We), based on the current recovery schedule. The cost savings realized for the first quarter were consumed by ongoing resolution of technical issues associated with the W764 production. For the Launch Accelerometer, the cost savings were expended on additional technical support, additional process analyses, acceleration of test equipment availability, and tooling procurements to provide necessary mitigation for process variations {that will occur during long term manufacturing as in the W764 schedule} in order to continue fully supporting ramp-up to full scale production and final steady state production. For the M04682 Dual Capacitor, prior cost savings are being expended on necessary design changes and requalification of the current vendor required to re-establish the manufacturing line for the capacitors. The August 2011 delivery was missed and the next assembly requirements are not being supported. In order to prevent a production gap, formal direction was provided to reduce the current production rate to a level that allows for delivery of new capacitors in the second quarter of FY2012. Prior cost savings are also being expended on the qualification of a new vendor due to the issues with the current vendor. In addition, cost savings are being expended on specific manufacturing processes that are being transferred to SNL due to vendor issues until the qualification of the new vendor is completed in December 2012. This result is important because the NNSA must demonstrate the ability to achieve cost?effective Life Extension Programs within Defense Programs. This target is behind schedule because of unanticipated cost increases in FY 200?, FY 2008, FY 2009, FY 2010, and FY 2011 {resulting from: (1) materials and component technical issues and resulting design changes, (2) vendor issues, and (3) increasing M80 healthcare and compensation costs that have been passed onto the LEP by the contractors}. Because the target was missed in the past five years, cost increases may possibly be offset by future efficiencies elsewhere in the full production program {2012?2018}. 2010 Not Met Largely achieved the cumulative target of 1.0% reduction of projected warhead production cost per warhead from the established baseline, based on current recovery schedule. The result for FY 2010 is a 3% reduction of projected warhead cost per warhead. This result is important because the NNSA must demonstrate the ability to achieve cost? effective Life Extension Programs within Defense Programs. This target is behind schedule because of unanticipated cost increases in FY 200?, FY 2008, FY 2009, and FY 2010 {resulting from materials and component technical issues and the resulting design changes and increasing healthcare and compensation costs) that have been passed on to the LEP by the MM) contractors. Because the target was missed in the past three years, cost increases will have to be offset by future efficiencies elsewhere in the W764 full production program (2011-2023}. 2009 Not Met Did not achieve the cumulative target of 1.0% reduction of projected production cost per warhead from the established baseline. Based on current recovery schedule, achieved a 3% reduction of production cost per warhead. This result is important because the NNSA must demonstrate the ability to achieve cost-effective Life Extension Programs within Defense Programs. 2008 Not Met Did not achieve the cumulative target of 1% (decrease of reduction of projected W76 warhead production costs DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 151' per warhead from established validated baseline, but the program is on a recovery schedule; increase to a cumulative of 028% for FY 2008. This result is important because the NNSA must demonstrate an increasingly cost?effective life extension program within the nuclear weapons program. The annual target was missed because projected/realized cost increases in FY 2007 and FY 2008 resulted from the Canned Sub?Assembly special material technical issue, Arming, Fusing and Firing System issue, Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) issue at Pantex, and increasing health care and compensation costs passed on to the LEP from the M810 contractors. Although this target was missed, the majority of the cost increases will be offset by efficiencies elsewhere in the program. 2007 Not Met This result is important because NNSA must demonstrate an increasingly cost-effective life extension program within the nuclear weapons program. The cumulative target of 5% was missed (FY 2007 result was 39%) because current and projected cost increases in FY 2007 FY 2008 result from a special material technical issue; this cost increase may be offset by efficiencies elsewhere in the program, but the etticiencies have not been demonstrated at this time. Because this cumulative target was missed, production costs will be higher, unless mitigated. Documentation: 1} W764 LEP NNSA Project Plan (as revised) provides a summary of the activities and schedules necessary to accomplish the refurbishment); 2) Planning and Production Directive {P&PD)current FY revision};3} W76-01 Program Control document dated 1 5} Requirements and Planning Directive current revision; 4} Selected Acquisition Reportts} (SAR) tor 1; and, 5) Life Extension Program Management Plan dated 01-24-03. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 152 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfWeapons Activities Program: Directed Stockpile Work Website: stockpile.htm Performance Goal: Stockpiie Maintenance Post Budget Target: Annual percentage of items supporting Enduring Stockpile Maintenance completed {Annual percentage of prior?year non? completed items completed} {Annual Output} FY 2011 target: 95% {100%} Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Achieved the annual target by completing at least 95% (100% of prior year} of scheduled stockpile maintenance as reported by Pantex from their Integrated Reporting Information System Six Repair Exams were scheduled for completion by the end of the 4th with a total of eleven {11) completed. This result is important because it keeps active nuclear weapons fully operational, if needed by the President. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by completing 100% (100% of prior year} of scheduled stockpile maintenance as reported by 30W Pantex from their Integrated Reporting Information System (IRIS). Five repair exams were scheduled and five were completed. Four weapon rebuilds were scheduled and four were completed. Weapon program maintenance repair specifics are classified. Directives for the majority of weapons work are the individual weapon Program Control Documents Pantex's Dain Change Report is how the actual completions (by Line Order Number (LON) are reported to the Weapon Information System The Integrated Programmatic Scheduling System (IPSS) tracks these actual deliverables (by LON by weapon system); thus providing End-Of-Year status. The Directive for Limited Life Component (LLC) maintenance is the LLC PCD. All LONs, including change requests from the in support of weapon expiration (WISl?Master Nuclear Schedule andfor maintenance schedules (MNS) were met (100% completed). This result is important because it keeps active nuclear weapons fully operational. if needed by the President. 2009 Met Achieved the annual target of completing 95% {100% of prior year) of scheduled stockpile maintenance. This result is important because it keeps active nuclear weapons fully operational, if needed by the President. 2008 Met Achieved the annual target of completing scheduled stockpile maintenance annual target of 95% {100% of prior year). This result is important because it keeps active nuclear weapons fully operational, if needed by the President. 2007 Met This result is important because it keeps active nuclear weapons fully operational, if needed by the President. The annual target was 95% {100%} (FY 200? result was 95% Documentation: 1) End-of-Year Reconciliation Report; 2) Limited Life Component Exchange reports including shipping schedules,l database; 3) Weapon Program Control Documentts); 4} Quarterly Surveillance tracking through the Quality Evaluation Requirements Tracking System 5) Pantex Plant weekly performance reporting and Daily Change Report(s} (DCRs). DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 153 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSArWeapons Activities Program: Directed Stockpile Work Website: stockpilehtm Performance Goal: W764 Life Extension Program Post Budget Target: Cumulative percentage of progress in completing Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC}?approved W764 Life Extension Program activity {Long-term Output} FY 2011 target: 65% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Achieved 100% of the cumulative annual target of 65% in accordance with the new W764 baseline schedule. The previous target for FY 2011 was 56%. The target has been changed and the production program re-baselined as a result of the implementation of the Nuclear Posture Review and in accordance with the current planning in the Don DOE Nuclear Weapons Council Requirements and Planning Document The new baseline (supporting the Nuclear Posture Review, based on the NWC decision to extend the production of the W764 Life Extension Program and the 201 1 is formally released through the NWSM, NWSP [and the 2011 RPD) and is incorporated into the W76-01 PCB {201 1-A dated 07706711). The W764 Life Extension Program continues to maintain or exceed the baseline production rates established in FY2009 despite the technical issues encountered prior to full-scale production. This result is important because extending the life of the W764, a weapon system for Navy submarines, is on a highly success-oriented refurbishment schedule to most 000 requirements and national security needs. 2010 Not Met lvlissed target to achieve the cumulative annual target of 52%. Target achieved was 49%. The program did not meet its FY 2010 performance target for the W764 Life Extension Program due to technical issues encountered prior to full?scale production. However, the program has maintained the schedule baselined approximately one year ago and has completed units above that schedule in FY2010. This result is important because extending the life of the W764, a weapon system for Navy submarines, is on a highly success-oriented refurbishment schedule to meet requirements and national security needs. 2009 Met Achieved the cumulative annual target of 48% {schedule increase of 4% over prior year) in accordance with the current W764 baseline schedule. This result is important because extending the life of the W764, a weapon system for Navy submarines, is on a highly success-oriented refurbishment schedule to meet requirements and national security needs. 2008 Met Achieved the cumulative annual target of 44% {schedule increase of in accordance with the current W764 baseline schedule; projected increase of 5.2% over last year's actual to cumulative 44%. Previous technical problems {affecting schedule) associated with production of the special material for the Canned Sub-Assembly have been resolved. This result is important because extending the life of the W764, a weapon system for Navy submarines, is on a highly success-oriented refurbishment schedule to meet requirements and national security needs. 2007 Not Met This result is important because extending the life of the W764 the weapon system for Navy submarines, is on a highly success-oriented refurbishment schedule to meet requirements and national security needs. The cumulative target of 39% was missed (FY 2007 result was 37.9%} mainly because of a schedule shortfall, associated with Canned Sub- Assembly (GSA) special material production problems at 1?42. Because this target was missed, the NWC milestone for the First Production Unit (FPU) by September 2007 was not met. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 154 Documentation: 1) Identification of milestones (derived from the Integrated Master Schedule and Full Scale Engineering Development Schedule. These documents are defined in the W764 LEP NNSA Project Plan); 2) W76?t LEP NNSA Project Plan (as revised} provides a summary of the activities and schedules necessary to accomplish the refurbishment}; 3} Planning and Production Directive current FY revision]; 4] Program Control Document dated 0106?1 1; 5) Requirements and Planning Directive current revision; 6} Selected Acquisition Reportts) (SAR) for W76-1;and Life Extension Program Management Plan dated 01-24-U3 . DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report? 155 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSArWeapons Activities Program: Directed Stockpile Work Website: stockpilehtm Performance Goal: Annual Warheads Certification Annual percentage of warheads in the Stockpile that are safe, secure, reliable, and available to the President for deployment {Annual Outcome) FY 2011 target: 100% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Achieved 100% of the annual target {100%} whereby the nuclear warheads in the active stockpile were assessed through the Annual Assessment process as being safe, secure, reliable (eifective) and available to the President for deployment. This result is important because it ensures the overall availability of the nuclear weapons stockpile for the nation's nuclear deterrent. 2010 Met Achieved the annual target {100%} whereby the nuclear warheads in the active stockpile are assessed thru the Annual Assessment process as being safe, secure, reliable and available to the President for deployment. NA-10 signed out and sent the Cycle 15 Annual Assessment Memorandum to the National Laboratory Directors on January 12, 2010. This included the Annual Stockpile Assessment - Cycle 15 Execution Plan. In accordance with the milestone schedule therein, all deliverables were completed. This result is important because it ensures the overall availability of the nuclear weapons stockpile for the nation's nuclear deterrent. 2009 Met Achieved 100 percent of the annual target whereby 100% of weapons in the stockpile are sate, secure, reliable and available to the President tor deployment. This result is important because it ensures the overall availability of the nuclear weapons stockpile for the nation's nuclear deterrent. 2008 Met Achieved the annual target of 100% of weapons as sate, secure. reliable, and available. This result is important because it ensures the overall availability of the nuclear weapons stockpile for the nation's nuclear deterrent. 2007 Met This result is important because it ensures the overall availability of the nuclear weapons stockpile for the national nuclear deterrent. The annual target was 100% 2007' result was 100%). Documentation: Annual Assessment Report: Laboratory-published Warhead Annual Assessment Reports, Annual Laboratory Director Annual Assessment Letters, Report on Stockpile Assessment, 1) NNSA National Laboratories published Warhead Annual Assessment Reports! Weapon Reliability Reports; 2) Laboratory Director Annual Assessment Letters; 3) Annual Assessment Letter 4} Annual Assessment Memorandum to the President {SecDef-SecEng); 5) End-of-Year Reconciliation Report; 6} Weapon Yield Certification Letter; Significant Finding Investigation Reports DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 156 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfWeapons Activities Program: Science Campaign Website: Performance Goal: First Principles Physics Models Post Budget Target: Cumulative percentage of progress in replacing key empirical parameters in the nuclear explosive package assessment with first principles physics models assessed by validation with experiment [Long-term Outcome} FY 2011 target: 63% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 63% progress in replacing key empirical parameters in the nuclear explosive package assessment with first principles physics models assessed by validation with experiment. This was a year that saw major achievements in energy balance, resumption of Plutonium experiments on 2 and on JASPER, gas equation of state experiments on 2, new results determined on Bacchus and Barolo at U1 a and high energy weapon physics experiments on NIF. These results are important because they maintain capability needed to assess and certify our nuclear weapons in the absence of underground testing. 2010 Not Met Did not achieve maintaining the cumulative target of 60% progress in replacing key empirical parameters in the nuclear explosive package assessment with first principles physics models assess by validation with experiment. The FY 2010 result was 58%. This result is important because it will improve nuclear weapon certification confidence. This goal was missed because of delays on Jasper, Borclo, and Bacchus. As a result of this goal being missed additional costs are being incurred and further delays to both these and many smaller scale experiments result. The overall state of our knowledge of nuclear weapon materials, and plutonium in particular is now more than 2 years behind where it should be. 2009 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 50% progress in replacing Key empirical parameters in the nuclear explosive package assessment with first principles physics models assess by validation with experiment. This result is important because it will improve nuclear weapon certification confidence. Future Plans: For FY 2010, the target will increase to 60%. Documentation: - Predictive Capability Framework - Milestone Reporting Tool - White Paper on Quantification of Margins and Uncertainty Performance Measure DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 157 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSArWeapons Activities Program: Science Campaign Website: Performance Goal: Key Extreme Experimental Conditions Post Budget Target: Cumulative percentage of progress towards achievement of key extreme experimental conditions of matter needed for predictive capability for nuclear weapons performance (Long-term Outcome) FY 2011 target: 55% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Met the annual target of 55% progress towards achievement of key extreme experimental conditions of matter needed for predictive capability for nuclear weapons performance. The most significant results are the high energy weapons physics experiments at the NIF. High radiation temperature and high pressures have been achieved at NIF. The shots have supported the Dynamic Materials Properties and Secondary Assessment Technologies subprograms. The shots also support the Level-2 milestone associated with the Pleiades experiment. At there was restoration of Plutonium capability with first shot in November. At Omega, the highest yield DT cryogenic implosion was achieved, with an area density of 200 This result is important because it maintains capability needed to assess and certify our nuclear weapons in the absence of underground testing. 2010 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 35% progress towards achievement of key extreme experimental conditions of matter needed for predictive capability for nuclear weapons performance. This result is important because it will improve nuclear weapon certification confidence. 2009 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 25% progress towards achievement of key extreme experimental conditions of matter needed for predictive capability for nuclear weapons performance. This result is important because it will improve nuclear weapon certification confidence. Documentation: - Predictive Capability Framework - Milestone Reporting Tool - White Paper on Extreme Conditions Performance Measure DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 158 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfWeapons Activities Program: Science Campaign Website: Performance Goal: Stockpife Stewardship Science Annual investment, as measured by total Science Campaign budget, per refereed journal publication or final formal internal report (Efficiency) FY 20H target: $940,000 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Achieved an annual average cost of $940,000 per refereed journal publication or final formal internal report. The sites, at the rate of once or twice a year, provide a summary of their internal and external publications. They have recently updated their progress. A History of Boost, a classified publication, is a good example of addressing one of the key physics areas in weapon physics. This result is important because it demonstrates program efficiencies for scientific progress. 2010 lvlet Achieved the annual target of annual average cost of $970,000 per refereed journal publication or final formal internal report. This result is important because it demonstrates program efficiencies for scientific progress. For FY 2011 the target will decrease to $940,000. Documentation: Reports for the measure are provided by LLNL at the end of each Quarter; Data submitted is verified with LLNL POO by program staff; Log books supporting each test are available at LLNL for review by program managen?staff; NA-10 Milestone Reporting Tool status reports. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 159 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfWeapons Activities Program: Engineering Campaign Website: Performance Goal: Enhanced Surety Cumulative percentage of progress towards an improved initiation system to meet detonation safety requirements for future alterations or modifications to stockpiled weapons, measured by the number of milestones, in the implementation plan, completed [Long-term Output) FY 2011 target: 47% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Achieved the cumulative target of completion. All four of the Enhanced Surety Subprogram milestones have been completed for FY 201 1. This result is important because new components and materials will enable future systems and stockpiled weapons, subjected to alterations or modifications, to better satisfy surety requirements outlined in departmental directives, and provide for a safer and more secure stockpile. 2010 Met Achieved cumulative target of 41%. This result is important because new components and materials will enable future systems and stockpiled weapons, subjected to alterations or modifications, to better satisfy surety requirements outlined in departmental directives, and provide for a safer and more secure stockpile. 2009 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 35%. This result is important because new components and materials will enable future systems and stockpiled weapons, subjected to alterations or modifications, to better satisfy surety requirements outlined in departmental directives, and provide for a safer and more secure stockpile. 2008 Met Achieved the cumulative target of by completing all active supporting milestones on or ahead of schedule. This result is important because new components and materials will enable future systems to better satisfy surety requirements outlined in departmental directives, and provide for a safer and more secure stockpile. 200? Met This result is important because new components and materials will enable future systems to better satisfy surety requirements outlined in departmental directives, and provide for a safer and more secure stockpile. The cumulative target was (FY 2007 result was Documentation: Supporting schedule and milestones in approved program plans: - Program reports of specific accomplishment - Program-specific quarterly review briefings - Weighted statistical tool used to calculate overall milestone scope accomplishment - 0 status reports. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 160 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfWeapons Activities Program: Engineering Campaign Website: Performance Goal: Enhanced Surveiffance Cumulative percentage of progress towards completion of aging models and assessments, diagnostics, and tools needed for science?based lifetime predictions of specific weapon components and for transformation to more predictive, stockpile surveillance, measured by the number of milestones, in the implementation plans completed {Long-term Output} FY 2011 target: 62% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 82%. All eleven of the Enhanced Surveillance Subprogram milestones have been completed and are blue for year-end FY 2011. This result is important because this year's work enables earlier identification of stockpile aging concerns, reduces the uncertainties in the assessment of stockpile health, assists in decisions for stockpile refurbishment, and provides tools for transitioning to more predictive means to assess the stockpile. 2010 Met Achieved cumulative target of All seven of the Enhanced Surveillance Subprogram milestones were completed by the end of FY10. This result is important because this year?s work enables earlier identification of stockpile aging concerns, reduces the uncertainties in the assessment of stockpile health, assists in decisions for stockpile refurbishment, and provides tools for transforming to more predictive means to assess the stockpile. 2009 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 53%. This result is important because this year's work enables earlier identification of stockpile aging concerns, reduces the uncertainties in the assessment of stockpile health, assists in decisions for stockpile refurbishment, and provides tools for transforming to more predictive means to assess the stockpile. Supporting Documentation: Current. Future Plans: For FY 2010, the target will increase to 57%. The annual target will build on prior years' results, increasing 0% to achieve 59% of the annual performance target in FY 2010, as planned. This may be adjusted dependent upon the finalized FY 2010 Budget. 2008 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 47% by successfully completing the necessary amount of work scope on FY 2008 and out year milestones. This result is important because this year's work enabled earlier identification of stockpile aging concerns, reduces the uncertainties in the. assessment of stockpile. health, assists in decisions for stockpile refurbishment, and provides tools for transforming. to more predictive means to. assess the stockpile. 200? Met This result is important because this year's work enables earlier identification of stockpile aging concerns, reduces the uncertainties in the assessment of stockpile health, assists in decisions for stockpile refurbishment, and provides tools for transforming to more predictive means to assess the stockpile. The cumulative target was 40% 2007? result was Documentation: Supporting schedule and milestones in approved program plans Program reports of specific accomplishment Program?specific quarterly review briefings Weighted statistical tool used to calculate overall milestone scope accomplishment 0 status reports DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 161' Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfWeapons Activities Program: Engineering Campaign Website: Performance Goal: Ion Beam Laboratory Cumulative percentage of the Ion Beam Laboratory (IBL) project completed (total project cost), while maintaining a Cost Performance Index (CPI) of 0.9-1.5 (Efficiency) FY 2011 target: 95% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of 95% by completing project 6 months ahead of the March 2012 scheduled baseline and ended below the budgeted amount of The IBL Facility and the IBL Equipment are now operational and performing in compliance with project specification. The CID-4 package was approved Sept 201 1. This result is important because a key facility will be provided to support major campaign efforts. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the cumulative target of 82% by completing 78.4% by year-end. The project is on track and has maintained a cumulative CPI of 1 .09. Despite 3 Baseline Change Approval to increase the scope, the project is ahead of schedule and is within cost. This result is important because a key facility will be provided to support major campaign efforts. 2009 Exceeded Exceeded the cumulative target of 38.3%. This result is important because a key facility will be provided to support major campaign efforts. Documentation: IBL Report; DOE Project Assessment and Reporting System (PARS ll} reports providing official project status to the DOE Deputy Secretary and NNSA Administrator DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 162 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfWeapons Activities Program: Engineering Campaign Website: Performance Goal: Nuclear Survivability Cumulative percentage of completion of design and qualification tools for meeting requirements for survivability in intense radiation environments needed for future alterations or modifications to replace the existing proof-testing approach that uses significant amounts of highly enriched uranium, measured by the number of milestones in the implementation plan, completed (Long-term Output} FY 2011 target: 70% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Achieved the cumulative target of All three of the Nuclear Survivability Subprogram milestones have been completed for FY 2011. This result is important because the development of the tools is needed to assess whether certain non-nuclear components of weapons in the future stockpile will meet nuclear survivability requirements. This assessment must be performed in life extension programs and in new insertion opportunities, including weapon alterations and modifications. 2010 Met Achieved cumulative target of 55%. Three of the four subprogram milestones were completed on time; the fourth milestone was completed soon after the end of FY2010, with no impact to FY1 1 work scope. This result is important because the development of the tools is needed to assess whether the non-nuclear components of weapons in the future stockpile will meet nuclear survivability requirements. 2009 Met Achieved the cumulative target by completing 55% of design and qualification tools for meeting requirements for survivability in intense radiation environments needed for future alterations or modifications to replace the existing proof- testing approach. This result is important because the development of the tools is needed to assess whether the non- nuclear components of weapons in the future stockpile will meet nuclear survivability requirements. 2008 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 48% by successfully completing all supporting milestones on or ahead of schedule. This result is important because the improved tools for the survivability of weapons in the future stockpile will meet nuclear survivability requirements for non-nuclear components in life extension programs and new insertion opportunities including weapon alterations and modifications; and these tools will aid in the development, validation. improvement. and sustainment of experimental and theoretical capabilities resulting in the development of radiation-hardening technologies to support the certification and. effectiveness of the evolving and aging. stockpile. 2007 Met This result is important because the improved tools for the survivability of weapons in the future stockpile will meet nuclear survivability requirements for non?nuclear components in life extension programs and new insertion opportunities including weapon alterations and modifications. These tools will aid in the development, validation, improvement, and sustainment of experimental and theoretical capabilities resulting in the development of radiation?hardening technologies to support the certification and effectiveness of the evolving and aging stockpile. The cumulative target was 40% (FY 200? result was Documentation: Supporting schedule and milestones in approved program plans: Program reports of specific accomplishment Program?specific quarterly review briefings Weighted statistical tool used to calculate overall milestone scope accomplishment 0 status reports DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 163 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSArWeapons Activities Program: Engineering Campaign Website: Performance Goal: Weapon Systems Engineering Assessment Technoiogy Cumulative percentage of progress towards system engineering methodology for assessing and predicting the effects of large thermal, mechanical, and combined forces on nuclear weapons for future alterations or modifications, measured by the number of experimental data sets, in the implementation plan, completed [Long-term Output} FY 2011 target: 60% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 80%. All three of the Weapon Systems Engineering Assessment Technology Subprogram milestones have been completed and are blue for year-end FY 2011. This result is important because these data sets will help develop the tools and technologies to validate structural and thermal models used by the Engineering Campaign to support the stockpile and will help the development of improved qualification tools and methodologies for the future stockpile. 2010 Met Achieved cumulative target of 51 We. Three of the four subprogram milestones were completed on time; the fourth milestone was completed soon after the end of FY2010, with no impact to FY1 1 work scope. The amount of work scope left incomplete at the end of FY10 is less than 0.5% of the target. This result is important because these data sets will help develop the tools and technologies to validate structural and thermal models used by the Engineering Campaign to support the stockpile and will help the development of improved qualification tools and methodologies for the future stockpile. 2009 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 54% of progress towards system engineering methodology for assessing and predicting the effects of large thermal, mechanical, and combined forces on nuclear weapons for future alterations or modification. This result is important because these data sets will help develop the tools and technologies to validate structural and thermal models used by the Engineering Campaign to support the stockpile and will help the development of improved qualification tools and methodologies for the future stockpile. 2008 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 53% by successfully completing all milestones on or ahead of schedule. This result is important because these data sets will help develop the tools and technologies to validate structural and thermal models used by. the Engineering Campaign to support the stockpile and will helpthe development of improved qualification tools and. methodologies for the future stockpile. 200'? Met This result is important because these. data sets will help develop the tools and technologies to validate structural and thermal models used by the Engineering. Campaign to support the stockpile and will. help the development of improved qualification tools and methodologies for the future stockpile. The cumulative target was 45% (FY 2007. result was Documentation: Supporting. schedule and milestones. in. approved program. plans; Program reports of specific accomplishment; Program? specific quarterly review briefings; Weighted statistical tool used to calculate overall milestone scope accomplishment; Milestone Reporting Tool (MRT) status reports DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 164 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfWeapons Activities Program: Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign Website: Performance Goal: Cost Reduction Cumulative percentage of operating cost reduction from 2009, adjusted for inflation, utility costs, and laboratory indirect costs, all ICF facilities combined {Efficiency} FY 2011 target: 1% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Data Not Missing the status because data is not available and due to challenges in collecting uniform and comparable Available costfsavings data among the operating sites. This was not measured due to the very different ways used by the operating sites to assign costs and savings. 2010 Data Not Due to the very different ways used by the operating sites to assign costs and savings, it has been found impossible to Available establish a uniform system of evaluating the savings. Documentation: None available. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 165 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAKWeapons Activities Program: Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign Website: Performance Goal: High Partiote and Radiation Environment Annual percentage of shotsfexperimental implosions in which the facility and diagnostics meet the minimum requirements for obtaining data in high particle and radiation environments {Annual Output) FY 2011 target: 40% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 40%. Shots related to this measure are being conducted on the NIF, and Omega and 2 shots continue to be on track. This result is important because it demonstrates the ability of the facility to meet the requirements and to enhance the confidence in the data obtained. 2010 lvlet Achieved the cumulative target of 30%. This measure is important because it demonstrates ability of the facility to meet the requirements and to enhance the confidence in the data obtained. Documentation: Program schedule and supporting milestones are in program plans; E-mail reports trom site facilities supported by experimental logs; Milestone Reporting Tool status reports DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 166 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSArWeapons Activities Program: Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign Website: Performance Goal: Key Extreme Experiments Cumulative percentage of progress towards achievement of key extreme experimental condition of matter needed for predictive capability for nuclear weapons performance {Long-term Outcome] FY 2011 target: 55% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Met the annual target of 55% progress towards achievement of key extreme experimental conditions of matter needed for predictive capability for nuclear weapons performance. The most significant results are the high energy weapons physics experiments at the NIF. High radiation temperature and high pressures have been achieved at NIF. The shots have supported the Dynamic Materials Properties and Secondary Assessment Technologies subprograms. The shots also support the Level-2 milestone associated with the Pleiades experiment. At there was restoration of Plutonium capability with first shot in November. At Omega, the highest yield DT cryogenic implosion was achieved, with an area density of 200 This result is important because it maintains capability needed to assess and certify our nuclear weapons in the absence of underground testing. 2010 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 35% progress towards achievement of key extreme experimental conditions of matter needed for predictive capability for nuclear weapons performance. This result is important because it will improve nuclear weapon certification confidence. Documentation: . Predictive Capability Framework; Milestone Reporting Tool DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 167 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAKWeapons Activities Program: Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign Website: Performance Goal: Nuctear Exptosive Package Assessment Cumulative percentage of progress in replacing key empirical parameters in the nuclear explosive package assessment with first principles physics models assessed by validation with experiment (Long-term Outcome) FY 2011 target: 63% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 63% progress in replacing key empirical parameters in the nuclear explosive package assessment with first principles physics models assessed by validation with experiment. This was a year that saw major achievements in energy balance, resumption of Plutonium experiments on 2 and on JASPER, gas equation of state experiments on 2, new results determined on Bacchus and Barolo at U1 a and high energy weapon physics experiments on NIF. These results are important because they maintain capability needed to assess and certify our nuclear weapons in the absence of underground testing. 2010 Not Met Did not achieve maintaining the cumulative target of 60% progress in replacing key empirical parameters in the nuclear explosive package assessment with first principles physics models assess by validation with experiment. The FY 2010 result was 58%. This result is important because it will improve nuclear weapon certification confidence. This goal was missed because of delays on Jasper, Borolo, and Bacchus. As a result of this goal being missed additional costs are being incurred and further delays to both these and many smaller scale experiments result. The overall state of our knowledge of nuclear weapon materials, and plutonium in particular is now more than 2 years behind where it should be. Documentation: Predictive Capability Framework; Milestone Reporting Tool; White Paper on Quantification of Margins and Uncertainty Performance Measure. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 168 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAKWeapons Activities Program: Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign Website: Performance Goal: Adoption of ABC Modern Codes The cumulative percentage of simulation runs that utilize modern ABC?developed codes on ASC computing platforms. as measured against the total of legacyr and A80 codes used for stockpile stewardship activities {Long-term Outcome} FY 2011 target: 90% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Exceeded The non-code development use of the ASC modern codes and legacy codes for stockpile stewardship activities exceeded expectations. The A80 program achieved a cumulative percentage of {an increase of over the target of The progress associated with this outcome performance indicator is based on lab program manager assessment of A80 modern code usage by designers and not discrete project activities. This calculation is the result of averaging the site reported data points. This result is important because it demonstrates the adoption of the modern codes for improved assessment and certification of the nuclear stockpile. 2010 Met Achieved 100% of the annual target of the cumulative percentage of 85% {increase of of simulation runs that utilize modern ABC-developed codes. This result is important because it demonstrates the adoption of the modern codes for improved assessment and certification of the nuclear stockpile. 2009 Met Achieved the cumulative percentage of 80% {increase of of simulation runs that utilize modern ASC-developed codes. This result is important because it demonstrates the adoption of the modern codes for improved assessment and certification of the nuclear stockpile. 2008 Met Achieved the cumulative percentage of {increase of of simulation runs that utilize modern ASS-developed codes This result is important because it demonstrates the adoption of the modern codes for improved assessment and certification of the nuclear stockpile. 2007 Met Documentation: Periodic reports to H0 Program Manager from responsible site concerning specific deliverables and NA-10 Milestone Reporting Tool (M status reports. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 169 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfWeapons Activities Program: Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign Website: Performance Goal: ABC impact on Closure Investigations (SFls) resolved through the use of modern {non?legacy} ASC codes, measured against all codes used for SFI resolution {Long? term Outcome) FY 2011 target: 65% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Exceeded Exceeded target of 85% by 7% to achieve a cumulative percentage for 72% of nuclear weapon resolved through the use of modern ASC codes. The activity associated with this outcome performance indicator is level-of-effort and in- Iine with expectations of work scope articulated in the draft FY 2011 implementation plan. The specific accomplishments are classified in nature and therefore are unavailable for this report. Contributions of ASC to the annual assessment, life extension programs including significant finding investigations can be briefed at the convenience. This result is important because it demonstrates the impact of the modern codes for improved assessment and certification of the nuclear weapons stockpile. 2010 Met Achieved 100% of the annual target of the cumulative percentage for 60% {increase of 10%} of nuclear weapon resolved through the use of modern ASC codes. This result is important because it demonstrates the impact of the modern codes for improved assessment and certification of the nuclear weapons stockpile. 2009 Met Achieved the cumulative percentage of 50% {increase of 13%} of nuclear weapon resolved through the use of modern ASC codes. This result is important because it demonstrates the impact of the modern codes for improved assessment and certification of the nuclear weapons stockpile. Supporting Documentation: Current. 2008 Met Achieved the cumulative percentage of 37% (increase of 12%} of nuclear weapon resolved through the use of modern ASC codes. This result is important because it demonstrates the impact of the modern codes for improved assessment and certification of the nuclear weapons stockpile. 2007 Met Documentation: Laboratory reports to H0 Program Manager and NA-to Milestone Reporting Tool status reports DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 170 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfWeapons Activities Program: Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign Website: Performance Goal: Reduced Reliance on Calibration Cumulative percentage reduction in the use of calibration ?knobs? to successfully simulate a nuclear weapons performance {Long?term Outcome) FY 2011 target: 35% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Achieved target for a cumulative 35% reduction in the use of calibration ?knobs.? The activity associated with this outcome performance indicator is based on the Predictive Capability Framework plans and in-line with expectations of work scope articulated in the draft FY 201 1 implementation plan. This result is important because it continues the maturation of modern codes provided to users to support stockpile certification. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target with a cumulative 33% reduction in the use of calibration ?knobs.? This result is important because it continues the maturation of modern codes provided to users to support stockpile certification. 2009 Met Achieved the cumulative percentage of 25% {increase of of reduction in the use of calibration ?knobs.? This result is important because it continues the maturation of the modern codes provided to users to support stockpile certification. Supporting Documentation: Current. 2008 Met Achieved the cumulative percentage of 18% (increase of of reduction in the use of calibration ?knobs.? This result is important because it continues the maturation of the modern codes provided to users to support stockpile certification. 200? Met -- Documentation: Laboratory Reports to HQ Program Manager and NA-10 Milestone Reporting Tool (MRT) status reports. DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 171' Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAKWeapons Activities Program: Readiness Campaign Website: Performance Goal: Critical Capabilities Deployed Cumulative number of critical immediate and urgent capabilities deployed to support our Directed Stockpile Work customer's nuclear weapon refurbishment needs derived from the Production Readiness Assessment Plan (Long-term Output) FY 2011 target: 27' Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 27" (increase of 2 capabilities} by way of Advanced Inventory and Materials Management and Multi-Site Tester Architecture. To date; Advanced Inventory and Materials Management project was completed in March 2011 and the Multi-Site Tester Architecture was completed in September 201 1. This result is important because it is required to support immediate and urgent nuclear weapon refurbishment needs. 2010 Met Met the cumulative target of 25 (increase of 1 capability by way of Deployment of Backfill i Crimp Station} This result is important because it is required to support immediate and urgent nuclear weapon refurbishment needs. 2009 Exceeded Exceeded the cumulative target of 24. This result is important because it is required to support immediate and urgent nuclear weapon refurbishment needs. 2008 Met Achieved the annual target of a cumulative total of 22 critical capabilities at the end of FY 2008. This is an increase of 2. This result is important because it is required to support immediate and urgent nuclear weapon refurbishment needs. 200? Met This result is important because it is required to support immediate and urgent nuclear weapon refurbishment needs. The cumulative target was 20 2007? result was 20}. Documentation: Milestones supporting the performance measure are documented in the Campaign's plans; Site acceptance reports or other appropriate documentation (it classified, cover pages submitted including applicable document record numbers and information on how to obtain a copy of the report); site status calls with the Federal Program Manager; Submittal of copies of Qualification Engineering Releases Federal Program Manageri?stafl confirm completion during site visits and Program Reviews by observation of the capability in use; NA-10 Milestone Reporting Tool RT) status reports DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 172? Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNASKWeapons Activities Program: Readiness Campaign Website: Performance Goal: Percentage of investment Percentage of investment in the ADAPT, Stockpile Readiness, Nonnuclear Readiness, and High Explosive and Weapons Operations subprograms in development of Capabilities that forecast within three years of production deployment operational cost savings of at least two times the development and deployment cost compared to pre-deployment operations. (Long-term efficiency} FY2011 target: 2.5% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Exceeded the target of Readiness Campaign had an efficiency savings of approximately This result is important because it supports the transformation of the nuclear security enterprise into an agile and more responsive enterprise with lower production and operating costs. 2010 lvlet lvlet the target of 2.5 This result is important because it supports the transformation of the nuclear security enterprise into an agile and more responsive enterprise with lower production and operating costs. 2009 Exceeded Exceeded the target of This result is important because it supports the transformation of the nuclear weapons complex into an agile and more responsive enterprise with lower production and operating costs. Documentation: Spreadsheet documenting ADAPT Savings, HEWO Savings, NNR Savings, and SR Savings DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report I 73 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNASiWeapons Activities Program: Readiness Campaign Website: Performance Goal: Reduce Cycle Times The number of capabilities deployed every other year to stockpile programs that will reduce cycle times at least by 35% (against baselined agility and efficiency} {Annual Outcome] FY 2011 target: 1 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Achieved the target of deploying one capability (by way of in FY11 that will reduce cycle times by at least 35 To date. standardizing the Universal Electrostatic Discharge positions the CASTE-WR completed its FY1 1 activities September 201 1. This result is important because it is required to support immediate and urgent nuclear weapon refurbishment needs. 2010 -- -- 2009 Exceeded Exceeded the target of deploying one capability in FY 2009 that will reduce cycle times at least by at least 35%. This result is important because it is required to support immediate and urgent nuclear weapon returbishment needs. 2008 lvlet Achieved the annual target of milestones completed in working towards deploying one capability in FY 2009 that will reduce cycle times at least by at least 35%. This result is important because it is required to support immediate and urgent nuclear weapon refurbishment needs. 200? lvlet This result is important because it is required to support immediate and urgent nuclear weapon refurbishment needs. The annual target was 1 (FY 2007 result was 1). Documentation: Milestones supporting the performance measure are documented in the Campaign?s plans -Site acceptance reports or other appropriate documentation {if classified, cover pages submitted including applicable document record numbers and information on how to obtain a copy of the report} site status calls with the Federal Program Manager -Submittal of copies of Qualification Engineering Releases -Federal Program Managen?staif confirm completion during site visits and Program Reviews by observation of the capability in use -NA-10 Milestone Reporting Tool status reports DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 174 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiWeapons Activities Program: Readiness Campaign Website: Performance Goal: Tritium Production Cumulative number oi Tritium?Producing Burnable Absorber Rods irradiated in Tennessee Valley Authority reactors to provide the capability of collecting new tritium to replace inventory for the nuclear weapons stockpile [Long-term Output} FY 2011 target: 1,328 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 1,328 TPBARs (increase of 240 TPBARs) irradiated by TVA. 240 TPBARs were removed trom the reactor in March 201 1, and 544 TPBARS were inserted. The 544 TPBARS that were inserted are projected to be removed from the reactor in October 2012. This result is important because irradiation of TPBARs is essential for the establishment of an assured domestic source of tritium to meet the continuing needs of the nuclear weapons stockpile. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the cumulative target of 980 TPBARs {increase of 240 irradiated in TVA reactors by completing the irradiation of 1,088 TPBARS. This result is important because irradiation of TPBARs is essential tor the establishment of an assured domestic source oi tritium to meet the continuing needs of the nuclear weapons stockpile. 2009 Exceeded Exceeded the cumulative target of 980 TPBARs {increase of 240 TPBARs) irradiated in TVA reactors. This result is important because irradiation of Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Rods is essential for the establishment of an assured domestic source oi tritium to meet the continuing needs of the nuclear weapons stockpile. 2008 Met Achieved the cumulative target of T20 TPBARs irradiated in FY 2008, an increase of 240 TPBARs. This result is important because irradiation of Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Rods is essential for the establishment of an assured domestic source oi tritium to meet the continuing needs of the nuclear weapons stockpile. 200? Met This result is important because irradiation of Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Rods is essential for the establishment of an assured domestic source of tritium to meet the continuing needs of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The cumulative target was 480 2007 result was 480). Documentation: Milestones supporting the performance measure are documented in the Campaign's plans -Site acceptance reports or other appropriate documentation {if classified, cover pages submitted including applicable document record numbers and information on how to obtain a copy of the report) . -Weekly project status calls with the Federal Program Manager -End of cycle reports submitted by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Quarterly Project Reviews (attended by Milestone Reporting Tool status reports DOE FY 20]} Armani Performance Report I 75 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNASiWeapons Activities Program: Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities Website: Performance Goal: Condition index for Mission Critical Annual NNSA complex?wide aggregate Facility Condition Index (FCI). as measured by deferred maintenance costs per replacement plant value, for all mission-critical facilities and infrastructure [Annual Outcome} FY 2011 target: 5% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of 5% by reducing the aggregate Facility Condition Index (FCI) for all mission critical facilities and infrastructure to This result is important because it demonstrates progress in improved facilities conditions and increased operational effectiveness and efficiency. 2010 Met Achieved the annual target by reducing the aggregate Facility Condition Index for all mission critical facilities and infrastructure to This result is important because it demonstrates progress in improved facilities conditions and increased operational effectiveness and efficiency. 2009 Met Exceeded the annual target by reducing the aggregate Facility Condition Index {FCli for all mission critical facilities and infrastructure to 3.37%. This result is important because it demonstrates progress in improved facilities conditions and increased operational effectiveness and efficiency. 2008 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by reducing the aggregate Facility Condition Index for all mission critical facilities and infrastructure to 4.28% (target was This result is important because it demonstrates progress in improved facilities conditions and increased operational effectiveness and efficiency. 200? Met This result is important because it demonstrates progress in improved facility conditions and increased operational effectiveness and efficiency. The annual target was 6.8% 200? result was Documentation: Milestones supporting the performance measure are documented in the program and site RTBF plans; Ten-Year Planning Guidance and Ten-Year Site Plans; DOE Facility Information Management System (FIMS) database; Nit-10 Milestone Reporting Tool status reports DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report I 76 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiWeapons Activities Program: Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities Website: Performance Goal: Condition index for Mission Dependent Not Criticai Annual NNSA complex?wide aggregate Facility Index (FCI), as measured by deferred maintenance per replacement plant value, for all mission? dependent, not critical facilities and infrastructure [Annual Outcome} FY 2011 target: 8.45% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Exceeded the target of 8.45% by reducing the aggregate Facility Condition Index (FCI) for all mission dependent, not critical facilities and infrastructure to This result is important because it demonstrates progress in improved facilities conditions and increased operational effectiveness and efficiency. 2010 Met Achieved the annual target by reducing the aggregate Facility Condition Index for all mission dependent, not critical facilities and infrastructure to This result is important because it demonstrates progress in improved facilities conditions and increased operational effectiveness and efficiency. 2009 Met Exceeded the annual target by reducing the aggregate Facility Condition Index for all mission dependent, not critical iacilities and infrastructure to 8.91%. This result is important because it demonstrates progress in improved facilities conditions and increased operational effectiveness and efficiency. 2008 Met Achieved 93% of the annual target by reducing the aggregate Facility Condition Index (FCI) for all mission dependent, not critical facilities and infrastructure to 8.92% {target was This result is important because it demonstrates progress in improved facilities conditions and increased operational effectiveness and efficiency. Documentation: - Milestones supporting the performance measure are documented in the program and site plans - Ten-Year Planning Guidance and Ten-Year Site Plans - DOE Facility Information Management System (FIMS) database - MIA-1D Milestone Reporting Tool (MRT) status reports DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report I 77 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiWeapons Activities Program: Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities Website: Performance Goal: Major Construction Projects Execute construction projects within approved costs and schedules, as measured by the total percentage of projects with total estimated cost (TEC) greater than $20 million with a schedule performance index {ratio of budgeted cost of work performed to budgeted cost of work scheduled} and a cost performance index {ratio of budgeted cost of work performed to actual cost of work performed) between 0.9-1 .15 (Efficiency Measure) FY 2011 target: 90% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Achieved 100% of the target by fiscal year end. One project, the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility Replacement Radiological Laboratory Utility Office Building Equipment Installation sub-project, has a schedule performance index of 1.09. This means the project is ahead of schedule and likely to finish early. This result is important because it demonstrates effective program management over multiple projects and improved efficiencies. 2010 Met Achieved the annual target of 90%. All ten projects {100%} met the criteria. Two of the eight projects exceeded the criteria (indices are greater than the specified band, meaning they are outperforming expectations}. The Zone 12 High Pressure Fire Loop at Pantex has a cost performance index of 1.24, higher than the upper limit. The CMRR RLUOB Equipment Installation Project has a schedule performance index of 1.33. This result is important because it demonstrates effective program management over multiple projects and improved efficiencies. 2009 Not Met Did not achieve the annual target of 90%. Six of nine projects meet the criteria, therefore achieved 74% of the target. Of nine projects: The Ion Beam Laboratory (lBLj Project outperformed expectations and has a cumulative SPI of 1.24 (21.15). The High Pressure Fire Loop Project has a cumulative CPI of 1.26 thus outperforming expectations. The TA-55 Reinvestment Phase I Project is behind schedule with a cumulative SPI of 0.38 This result is important because it demonstrates effective program management over multiple projects and improved efficiencies. 2008 Not Met Did not achieve the annual target of 85%. Only E- of 9 construction projects earned value data fall within the specified band. This result is important because it demonstrates effective program management over multiple projects and. improved efficiencies. The annual target was. missed because three projects. do. not meet. the criteriadue to late. receipt of. final. FY 08 funding. cost increases, delay in the. LANL site?wide. EIS. and other factors. Because this. target. was missed. other projects will have to be rebaselined. 200? Met This result is important because it demonstrates effective program management over. multiple projects and improved efficiencies. The annual target was 80%. 200? result was 100%). Documentation: Baselined schedules. and major decision points for. projects are in individual project plans project progress reports that include Earned Value Management (EVM) data DOE Project Assessment and Reporting System (PARS) reports tvlilestone Reporting Tool (MRT) status reports DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report I 78 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiWeapons Activities Program: Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities Website: Performance Goal: Mission?Essential Facilities Enable NNSA missions by providing operational facilities to support nuclear weapon dismantlement. life extension, surveillance. and research and development activities, as measured by percent of scheduled versus planned days mission-critical and mission-dependent facilities are available without missing key deliverables (Annual Outcome} FY 2011 target: 95% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target with 98.15% for actual FY performance. This result is important because mission essential facilities are needed to support critical nuclear weapons stockpile work. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of 95% by achieving 9?.15% availability in FY 2010. This result is important because mission essential facilities are needed to support critical nuclear weapons stockpile work. 2009 Met Achieved the annual target of 95%. This result is important because mission essential facilities are needed to support critical nuclear weapons stockpile work. 2008 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of 95% facility availability of mission-critical and mission-dependent facilities, based on available data; current availability is 98%. This result is important because mission essential facilities are needed to support critical nuclear weapons stockpile work. 200? Met This result is important because mission essential facilities are needed to support critical nuclear weapons stockpile work. The annual target was 90% 2007' result was Documentation: Milestones supporting the performance measure are documented in the program and site RTBF plans; Quarterly reports from M210 contractors; NA-10 Milestone Reporting Tool status reports DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report I 79 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAlWeapons Activities Program: Secure Transportation Asset Website: Performance Goal: Delivery Timeliness Annual percentage of shipping requests delivered according to schedule. (Annual Efficiency) FY 2011 target: 90% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by ensuring that 96% of annual shipments were delivered according to schedule {target was This result is important because the measure shows the efficient use of organizational resources to meet the competing shipping requirements of the Nuclear Security Enterprise. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by completing 99% of shipping requests according to schedule {target was This result is important because it shows the efficient scheduling and use of organizational resources to meet the various customer requirements in the Nuclear Security Enterprise. 2009 Met Completed the baseline evaluation for this measure. This result is important because the new measure will show the efficient use of resources to meet the customer shipping requirements. Documentation: Official consolidated report submitted by a federal transportation manager, On-Time Delivery Quarterly Summary Sheet; Secondary documents that support the results are the Master Planning Schedule and the Quarterly Mission Schedule. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 180 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSArWeapons Activities Program: Secure Transportation Asset Website: Performance Goal: Safe and Secure Shipments Annual percentage of shipments completed safer and securer without compromisefloss of nuclear weaponsi?components or a release of radioactive material {Annual Outcome} FY 2011 target: 100% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Achieved 100% of the annual target by ensuring all shipments were completed safely and securely. This result is important because it shows that the STA Program is accomplishing its primary mission, especially in light of the increased risks and threats to the Nuclear Security Enterprise. 2010 Met Achieved 100% of the annual target by completing 100% of shipments safely and securely. This result is important because it shows that the STA Program is accomplishing its primary mission, especially in light of the increased risks and threats to the Nuclear Security Enterprise. 2009 Met Fully achieved the annual target of completing 100% of shipments safely and securely. This result is important because it indicates mission accomplishment, especially in light of the increased risks and threats to the Nuclear Security Enterprise. For FY 2010, the target will remain at 100%. 2008 Met Achieved the annual target of completing 100% of shipments safely and securely. This result is important because it indicates mission accomplishment, especially in light of the increased risks and threats to the Nuclear Security Enterprise. 200? Met This result is important because it indicates mission accomplishment, especially in light of the increased risks and threats to the Nuclear Security Enterprise. The annual target was 100% 200? result was 100%}. Documentation: Certification trom the senior Program Manager for Mission Operations that there are no known internal or external reports of any compromise or loss. Absence of any DOE Occurrence Reporting and Processing System reports related to shipments. Supporting milestones for the performance measure are documented in the program?s plans and in the NA-10 Milestone Reporting Tool Official results are posted and retained in the MRT. Secondary documents include: Forms T41, DOE Forms 1540.2, Forms 1911, OST Forms 1540.01 A 540.02, and the DOE Nuclear Material Management and Safeguard System. DOE FY 20} 1 Armani Performance Report 181' Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfWeapons Activities Program: Secure Transportation Asset Website: Performance Goal: Unit Readiness Annual percentage of unit readiness to perform assigned convoy mission?weeks (Long?term IDutput} FY 2011 target: 80% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by achieving a readiness rate of 82% (target was Despite a decrease in agent staffing levels, the program maintained a predictable transportation capability. This result is important because the measure shows the efficient management of federal agent resources. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by maintaining a readiness rate of 84% (target was This result is important because the measure shows the efficient management of agent resources to provide a predictable transportation capability. 2009 Met Fully developed the criteria, methodology, and calculations for this new readiness measure. This result is important because the measure will be changed to a Long-term Output and show the management efforts to improve the readiness level of federal agents and provide a predictable transportation capability. Documentation: Official consolidated report submitted by a federal manager, ?Agent Availability Report? Supporting milestones for the performance measure are documented in the program?s plans and in the NA-1D Milestone Reporting Tool Secondary documents that support the results are consolidated Staffing Reports, Recruitment Status Reports, and Nuclear Explosives Duties Lists DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 182 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiWeapons Activities Program: Nuclear ISounterterrorism Incident Response Website: Performance Goal: Emergency Operations Readiness index Emergency Operations Readiness Index measures the overall organizational readiness to respond to and mitigate radiological or nuclear incidents worldwide. (This Index is measured from 1 to 100 with higher numbers meaning better readiness--the first three quarters will be expressed as the readiness at those given points in time where as the year end will be expressed as the average readiness for the year's four quarters}. {Efficiency Measure} FY 2011 target: 91 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Not Met Program is not on track to achieve Readiness Index for the year. The Fourth Quarter rating is 93%, the average of the each of the year's quarters. Real-world events and a deployment in Japan for Fukushima response efforts significantly interfered with obtaining required levels of training by our first responders. This result is important since it helps Program Managers identify areas in need of further analysis and improvement in order to achieve our overall Readiness Index for the fiscal year. Program Impact: reduced proficiency for first responders results in lowered readiness to respond to radiological events. Required training has been, or will be rescheduled to accommodate completion by the end of the fiscal year or in first quarter of FY 2012. Some required training is obtained through parties which dictate the available training schedule. 2010 Not Met The Emergency Operations Readiness Index of 91 out of 100 was not achieved. index of 88). The impact of this result is important because it assesses emergency response readiness and identified weaknesses in required levels of training and personnel depth, which helped program managers identify and fix deficiencies within key elements of the program. 2009 Met Achieved the annual target of an Emergency Operations Readiness Index of 91 out of 100 (40 index of 91}. This result is important because it assesses emergency response readiness and helps program managers identify and fix deficiencies within key elements of the program. 2008 Met Achieved the annual target of an Emergency Operations Readiness Index of 91 out of 100 (40 index of 91}. This result is important because it assesses emergency response readiness and helps program managers identify and fix deficiencies within key. elements of the program. 2007 Met This result is important because it assesses emergency response readiness and helps program managers identify and fix deficiencies within key elements. of the program. The annual targetwas 91 (FY. 200? result was 91). Documentation: ARMS Reports; Weekly Meetings; Daily situational reports; Daily Infrastructure reports; ARMS website After. action reports? evaluators; After action reports controllers; State. local, 0. federal reports validating our response efforts; Task OrdersiWork Authorizations DOE FY 20} 1 Armani Performance Report 183 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfWeapons Activities Program: Facilities and Infrastructure Fiecapitalization Website: Performance Goal: Deferred Maintenance Annual dollar value and cumulative percentage of legacy deferred maintenance baseline of $900 million. funded for elimination by FY 2013 (Long-term Output} FY 2011 target: million Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by funding the elimination of of deferred maintenance (target was This result is important because it demonstrates progress in improving nuclear security enterprise facilities conditions by reducing the deferred maintenance backlog. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by funding the elimination of of deferred maintenance with a cumulative result of 89.0 percent {target was percent). This result is important because it demonstrates progress in improving nuclear security enterprise facilities conditions by reducing the deferred maintenance backlog. 2009 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by funding the elimination of with a cumulative result of 82% based on a revised deferred maintenance baseline of {target was This result is important because it demonstrates progress in improving nuclear weapons complex facilities conditions by reducing the deferred maintenance backlog. 2008 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by funding the elimination of with a cumulative result of 73% based on a revised deferred maintenance baseline of {target was This result is important because it demonstrates progress in improving nuclear weapons complex facilities conditions by reducing the deferred maintenance backlog. 200? Met This result is important because it demonstrates progress in improving nuclear weapons complex facilities conditions by reducing the deferred maintenance backlog. The annual target was (FY 2007? result was $7?5lvl Documentation: Work Authorizations; Site Program Reviews DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report? 184 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSArWeapons Activities Program: Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Website: Performance Goal: Execution of Projects Execute FIRP projects within approved cost and schedule baselines {including BCPs submitted for approval}, such that 90 percent of FIRP projects are on schedule to meet established milestones and are within total estimated costs (Efficiency) FY 2011 target: 90% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by executing more than 90% of FIRP projects within approved cost and schedule baselines. For the fourth quarter, 95.2% of active FIRP projects are green for cost and 90.5% are green for schedule. This result is important because it demonstrates effective program management with executing multiple projects. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by executing 90% of FIRP projects within approved cost and schedule baselines. For the fourth quarter, 93% of active FIRP projects are green for cost and 92% are green for schedule. This result is important because it demonstrates effective program management with executing multiple projects. Documentation: Program Summary Reports from NA-15's Baseline Analysis Reporting and Tracking Tool lntormaiion Data Warehouse [lDWj DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 185 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiWeapons Activities Program: Site Stewardship Website: Performance Goal: En vironmentai Monitoring and Remediation Annual percentage of environmental monitoring and remediation deliverables that are required by regulatory agreements to be conducted at NNSA sites that are executed on schedule and in compliance with all acceptance criteria. FY 2011 target: 95% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of 95% by submitting 100% of the annual environmental monitoring and remediation deliverables required by regulatory agreements at NNSA sites on time and in compliance with all acceptance criteria. This result is important because it prevents notices of violation, fines, and loss of confidence by the regulators often associated with late and insufficient deliverables. 2010 lvlet Achieved 100% of the annual target to submit environmental monitoring and remediation deliverables required by the site regulatory agreements to the appropriate state and federal agencies. In FY 2010 no deliverables have been missed. This result is important because it prevents notices of violation, fines, and loss of confidence by the regulators often associated with late and insufficient deliverables. 2009 Met Achieved the annual target of submitting on schedule and in compliance 95% of the regulatory required environmental and monitoring remediation deliverables. This result is important because it prevents notices of violation, fines, and loss of confidence by the regulators often associated with late and insufficient deliverables. 2008 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by submitting 100% of required environmental and monitoring remediation deliverables on schedule and in compliance with requirements. This result is important because it prevents notices of violation, fines, and loss of confidence by the regulators often associated with late and insufficient deliverables. Documentation: RCRA Permits; and annual reports to regulatory agencies; Compliance Monitoring Plans; Field Logs; Sampling Paperwork; LTS program plan status reports to the site offices DOE FY 20} 1 Armani Performance Report 186 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAKWeapons Activities Program: Site Stewardship Website: Performance Goal: Special Nuclear Material Removed Cumulative percentage of security category Special Nuclear Material removed from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory FY 2011 target: 90% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Shipped 91% cumulative percentage of security category If? Special Nuclear Material from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory by the end of FY 2011, against a goal 0190%. LLNL is on track to complete the removal of Category SNM by the end of FY 2012. This result is important because it supports the Secretary of Energy's Material Consolidation Initiative and will enable significant security cost reductions when completed. 2010 Met Achieved the annual target of having prepared 80% of security category material for removal from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. This result is important because it supports NNSA goal of material consolidation, will allow significant security cost reductions at LLNL, and will reduce risk to the public. Documentation: status reports and reviews from program. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 187 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfWeapons Activities Program: Defense Nuclear Security Website: Performance Goal: Assurance of Effective Performance Cumulative percentage of completed assessments by executing the DNS Integrated Assessment Planning Schedule and completing 100% of planned assessments annually (Effectiveness Measure} FY 2011 target: 100% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Completed 100% of planned assessments. Two Defense Nuclear Security (DNS) shadow assessments were completed during Q4 of FY 201 1. All scheduled assessments were conducted for the fiscal year. These onsite assessments are important because this allows DNS to have operational awareness of Safeguards and Security activities throughout the National Security Enterprise. Documentation: Integrated Assessment Plan and applicable reports DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 188 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAtWeapons Activities Program: Defense Nuclear Security Website: Performance Goal: Common Procurement System Cumulative cost savings achieved by implementing a common procurement system for selected security equipment Efficiency Measure) FY 2011 target: 10% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Achieved the annual target of 5% savings associated with the execution of a common procurement system (10% cumulative savings). NNSA sites continue to procure ammunition from the Department of Defense via their respective procurement channels, resulting in significant cost avoidance (approximately $475,000} and the advantage of military- specificationfquality assurance standards. The DNS Commodity Team?s (SGT) Interagency Contracting Procurement Team Agreement with Avoanederal Resources for protective is still in place and continues to be available for all NNSA and sites. During the fourth quarter, the team continued working on identifying sources for ammunition not available from body armor, and thermal imagery manufactures and suppliers for common procurement opportunities. This result is important because it demonstrates both time and cost savings. 2010 Met Fully achieved the annual target of 5% completion of activities associated with the implementation of a common procurement system. The DNS Security Commodity Team established an lnteragency Contracting Procurement Team Agreement with Avon for respirators that will yield a 25% savings {over $150,000 savings for two NNSA sites in the fourth quarter). The Team has established and prioritized a list of security equipment to be standardized and is working toward establishing similar ICPT Agreements that all DOE and NNSA sites may use. The process to identify and standardized equipment and establish strategic sourcing capabilities is completed and working well. This result is important to successfully implement security that will keep the NNSA sites secure. Documentation: Supporting documentation available. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 189 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSArWeapons Activities Program: Defense Nuclear Security Website: Performance Goal: Elite Forces Cumulative percentage of completion towards modernizing the National Nuclear Security Administration's protective forces in accordance with Tactical Response Force as known as ?Elite Forces," requirements (Long-term Output} FY 2011 target: 100% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Achieved the annual target of completing 100% of activities toward modernizing the protective forces (PF). All milestones have been completed. Sites are implementing and training curricula, and transitioning to Enterprise Mission Essential Task and Site-Specific Support Task training. Additionally, DNS is fielding a prototype training program during FY 2012 in preparation for full implementation through the NSE in FY 2013. These results are important to successfully implement security improvements that will keep the NNSA sites among the best defended and secure facilities in the world. 2010 Met Achieved the annual target of completing 60% of activities towards modernizing the protective forces. Three milestones were scheduled and completed during the fourth quarter. This result is important to successfully implement security improvements that will keep the NNSA sites among the best defended and secure facilities in the world. 2009 Met Achieved the annual target of completing 20% of activities towards modernizing the protective forces. This result is important to successfully implement security improvements that will keep the NNSA sites among the best defended and secure facilities in the world. Documentation: DNS Tactical Response Force UHF) Implementation Plan DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 190 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfWeapons Activities Program: Defense Nuclear Security Website: Performance Goal: Graded Security Protection Cumulative percentage of progress, measured in milestones completed towards implementation of all Graded Security Protection (GSP) policy at NNSA sites (Long-term Output) FY 2011 target: 100% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Not Met The target of 100% completion of the overall GSP milestones was not met. During the second quarter, Leadership adjusted the performance measure to align with full compliance vice conditional compliance. Full compliance will occur by the end of FY 2012; all but two sites are currently in full GSP compliance. One of the two non-compliant sites is pending de-inventory by the end of FY 2012 and is not required to achieve GSP compliance. The other non-compliant site is on track for compliance by end of FY 2012. DNS will continue to report the performance measure as yellow based on the pending de-inventory and pending full compliance at the final site. NA-10 and NA-1 are aware of the compliance status. This result is important to successfully implement security improvements that will keep the NNSA sites among the best defended and secure facilities in the world. 2010 Met Achieved the target of 50% completion of the overall GSP milestones. Four milestones were scheduled and completed during the fourth quarter. This result is important to successfully implement security improvements that will keep the NNSA sites among the best defended and secure facilities in the world. 2009 Met Fully achieved the annual target of 100% completion of the milestones. Progress measured in milestones towards implementing all GSP policies at the NNSA sites was accomplished for this year and was tracked in a Gant Chart from start to finish. This result is important to successfully implement security improvements that will keep the NNSA sites among the best defended and secure facilities in the world. Progress measured in milestones towards implementing all GSP policies at the NNSA sites was accomplished for this year and was tracked in a Gant Chart from start to finish. 2008 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 100% of the relevant milestones identified for the Pantex site. These milestones were completed prior to the suspension of the 2005 DBT implementation effort, which was superseded by the DOE Graded Security Protection policy. This result is important to successfully implement security improvements that will keep the NNSA sites. among the best defended. and secure facilities. in. the world. Documentation: DNS GSP Policy Program Management Plan DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 191' Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfWeapons Activities Program: Defense Nuclear Security Website: Performance Goal: NNSA Security Poffey Fi'eform Cumulative reduction in security requirements as part of the Defense Nuclear Security reform effort by reviewing DOE policies and issuance of NNSA policies {long-term output; reduce 20% of security requirements over the next four years (Efficiency Measure) FY 2011 target: 5% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Achieved 5% reduction in security requirements this fiscal year. Defense Nuclear Security (DNS) has issued two NNSA Policies (Information Security and Physical Security} which have reduced requirements and is currently reviewing Program Management and Protective Force policies for additional reductions. Supporting documentation available. This result is important because it will demonstrate that DNS's reform effort has reduced security requirements without affecting security throughout the Nuclear Security Enterprise. Documentation: Supporting documentation available. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 192 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiWeapons Activities Program: Cyber Security Website: Performance Goal: Cyber Certification and Accreditation Annual number of NNSA information assets reviewed for certification and accreditation {Efficiency Measure} FY 20H target: 45 Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Not Met Did not achieve 45 SEA reviews on information assets only performed 40. Though 45 0&A's were scheduled only 40 were completed. This result is important because the 0&A's provide the OCIO evidence that each site has an efficient Cyber Security program. Because this target was missed the efficiency of the Cyber Security Program across the NNSA Complex is less. 2010 lvlet Fully achieved the annual target of accrediting NNSA unclassified and classified systems, applications and networks as outlined by NNSA policies. The accreditation packages have been drafted, and have been fully reviewed by all sites. The process has been developed to move to a risk management framework via the current compliance-based process. This result is important because it provided the OCIO with the evidence that NNSA systems, applications and networks have met the certification and accreditation outlined in policy. 2009 Met Achieved the annual target of accrediting NNSA unclassified and classified systems, applications and networks as outlined by NNSA policies. This result is important because it provided the OCIO with the evidence that NNSA systems, applications and networks have met the codification and accreditation outlined in policy. Completed the annual target of Certification and Accreditations by completing 35 packages by September 30, 2009. These accreditations will provide the OCIO with a tool to measure the effective and efficiency of the cyber security program as it relates to certification and accreditation. The OCIO certification team has completed its quarterly requirement. 2008 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of 30 Certifications and Accreditations by completing 42 packages by September 30, 2008. These accreditations will provide the OCIO with a tool to measure the effective and efficiency of the cyber security program as it relates to certification and accreditation. The OCIO certification team has completed its quarterly requirement. This result is important because it provides a measure for the accuracy of the cyber security program. Documentation: Certification and Accreditation Plans DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 193 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfWeapons Activities Program: Cyber Security Website: Performance Goal: Cyber Security Reviews Annual average percentage of Cyber Security reviews conducted by the Office of Health. Safety and Security (HSS) at NNSA sites that resulted in the rating of ?effective? {based on last HSS review at each site over 2 Cyber Security topical areas} {Long-term Outcome} FY 2011 target: 100% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Achieved the annual rating of effective on 100% of cyber security reviews conducted by the Office Health, Safety and Security at NNSA sites. This result is important because these reviews provide the OGIO with evidence that each site has an effective Cyber security program. 2010 Data Not This measure was discontinued for the fiscal year by the NNSA Administrator. Available 2009 Met Achieved the annual target of an HSS rating of effective on 100% of cyber security elements at NNSA. This result is important because it ensure that NNSA system and network have met their certification and accreditation requirements as outlined in DOE, NNSA and Federal policy. 2008 lvlet Achieved the annual target of receiving an H88 rating of effective on a cumulative 100% of cyber security elements at NNSA sites for the two assessments conducted. Although H33 only completed two of the three planned assessments for cyber security during this reporting period, this decision was made outside of Cyber Security program's control. This result is important because it ensure that the NNSA systems and network have met their certification and accreditation requirements as outlined in DOE, NNSA and Federal policies. 200? Met This result is important because it ensure that NNSA system and network have met their certification and accreditation requirements as outlined in DOE, NNSA and federal policy. The annual target was 57% 200? result was Documentation: HSS Final Assessment Report DOE FY 20]} Armani Performance Report 194 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfWeapons Activities Program: Cyber Security Website: Performance Goal: Cyber Security Site Assessment Annual percentage of planned Cyber Security Site Assessment Visit (SAV) conducted by the Office of the Chief Information Officer Cyber Security Program Manager at NNSA sites that resulted in a rating of effective {Annual Output) FY 2011 target: 100% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Not Met Did not achieve the annual target of effective on 100% of cyber security assessments conducted at 9 NNSA field sites. Two site assessments were conducted in the fourth quarter, missing the target of 9 sites by 3 for the year. This measure was missed due to a shortfall in travel funding for the federal staff. As a result of missing 3 of the 9 site assessments this measure does not provide a complete picture of cyber security health across the enterprise. 2010 Not Met Did not achieve the annual target of an OCIO rating of effective on 100% of cyber security assessments conducted at 9 NNSA field sites. This measure had a 6-month moratorium; the assessments began again in May 2010 with 9 completed as of 30 Sep 2010 resulting in a 90% effective rating. This result is important because these assessments provide the OCIO with evidence that each site has implemented cyber security policies and procedures as outlined. 2009 Met Achieved the annual target of an OCIO rating of effective on 100% of cyber security assessments conduct at 4 NNSA field sites. The third quarter site assessment has been completed with an effective rating at KC P. This result is important because these assessments will provide the OCIO with evidence that each site has implement cyber security policies and procedures as outlined. 2008 Not Met Largely achieved the annual target by achieving a cumulative percentage of 85% on the SAVs conducted by the OCIO. This result is important because it ensures that the NNSA systems and network have met their certification and accreditation requirements as outlined in DOE, NNSA and Federal policies. The annual target was missed because the NNSA assessment process has been completely rewritten to meet new and changing requirements. The OCIO was not able to complete the scheduled assessment within during FY 2008. Documentation: OCIO Site Assessment Visit Fteport; Cyber Security Check List DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 195 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiDetense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development Website: Performance Goal: independent Merit Review Cumulative percentage of active research projects for which an independent merit review of the project's scientific quality and mission relevance has been completed during the second year of effort [and again within each subsequent three year period for those projects found to be of merit) FY 201i target: 100% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Met the annual cumulative percentage target of 100% of the 110 active scheduled research projects receiving independent merit reviews. The independent reviews provide extremely valuable, unbiased feedback to the Program Managers on the progress and impact of each research project. They assist in future funding decisions, directions in and transition to stakeholders. This result is important because it verifies scientific quality and mission relevance of each research project. 2010 Met Achieved the cumulative percentage target of 100% of active research projects receiving independent merit reviews. This result is important because it verifies scientific quality and mission relevance of each research project. 2009 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 100% of active research projects receiving independent merit reviews. This result is important because it verifies scientific quality and mission relevance of each research project. 2008 Met Achieved the annual target of 100% of active research projects receiving independent merit reviews. This result is important to verify scientific quality and mission relevance of each research project. 200? Met This result is important to verify scientific quality and mission relevance of each research project. The annual target was 100% (FY 2007? result was 100%). Documentation: Quarterly reports; Annual independent review status reports DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 196 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfDelense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development Website: Performance Goal: Merit Fle viewed Journalsx?Forums Annual number of articles published in merit reviewed professional journals representing leadership in advancing science and technology knowledge FY 2011 target: 200 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of 200 merit reviews publications by achieving 23?. This result is important because it demonstrates the program is a leader in advancing nonproliferation science and technology knowledge. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of 200 merit-reviewed publications by achieving 273. This result is important because it demonstrates the program is a leader in advancing nonproliferation science and technology knowledge. 2009 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of 200 merit-reviewed publications by achieving 331. This result is important because it demonstrates the program is a leader in advancing nonproliferation science and technology knowledge. 2008 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of 200 merit-reviewed publications by publishing 235 articles. This result is important because it demonstrates the program is a leader in advancing nonproliferation science and technology knowledge. 200? lvlet This result is important because it demonstrates the program is a leader in advancing science and technology knowledge. The annual target was 200 200? result was 220}. Documentation: Quarterly Annual peer-review publications; Other forums for reports DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 197 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiDetense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development Website: Performance Goal: Piutonium Production Detection Cumulative percentage of progress toward demonstrating the next generation of technologies and methods to detect Plutonium production activities. [Progress is measured against the baseline criteria and milestones published in the 2006 RED Requirements Documentt}. FY 2011 target: 65% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Met annual target of 65% cumulative progress towards demonstrating the next generation of technologies to detect plutonium production activities. This result is important because it increases the U.S. capability to detect clandestine nuclear weapons production activities. 2010 lvlet Achieved the annual target of 50% cumulative percentage of progress towards demonstrating the next generation of technologies to detect plutonium production activities. This result is important because it increases the U.S. capability to detect clandestine nuclear weapons production activities. 2009 lvlet Achieved the annual target of 30% cumulative progress towards demonstrating the next generation of technologies to detect plutonium production activities. This result is important because it increases the US. capability to detect clandestine nuclear weapons production activities. 2008 Met Achieved the annual target of 25% cumulative progress towards demonstrating the next generation of technologies to detect plutonium production activities. This result is important because it increases the US capability to detect clandestine nuclear weapons production activities. 200? lvlet This result is important because it increases the U.S. capability to detect clandestine nuclear weapons production activities. The cumulative target was 20% 2007 result was Documentation: Program PlaniRoadmap document; Memorandum tor Record {unclassified located in certified by DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 198 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiDetense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development Website: Performance Goal: Research and De veiopntent Detonation Detection Annual index that summarizes the status of all NNSA detonation detection deliveries that improve the nation?s ability to detect nuclear detonations. FY 2011 target: 90% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Achieved the annual target of Nuclear Detonation Detection (NDD) deliveries. This result is important because it tracks timeliness for delivery of NDD products within customer and identifies potential impacts on the nation's ability to detect nuclear detonations. 2010 lvlet Achieved the annual index target of 90% of Nuclear Detonation Detection deliveries. This result is important because it tracks timeliness for delivery of NDD products within customer timelinesi?schedules, and identifies potential impacts on the nation's ability to detect nuclear detonations. 2009 lvlet Achieved the annual target of Nuclear Detonation Detection (NDD) deliveries. This result is important because it tracks timeliness for delivery oi NDD products within customer timelinesi?schedules, and identifies potential impacts on the nation's ability to detect nuclear detonations. 2008 Met Exceeded the annual target of Nuclear Detonation Detection (NDD) deliveries. Although slow funding start at the beginning of the fiscal year limited production efforts and placed several deliveries behind schedule, the restoration of funds and work reprioritization, elimination of some testing and incurring increased risk enabled recovery of key deliverable schedule by end-of-year. This result is important because it tracks timeliness for delivery of NDD products within customer timelinesi?schedules, and identifies potential impacts on the nation?s ability to detect nuclear detonations. 2007 Met -- Documentation: Quarterly reports; Final delivery transmittal letters to user agencies for satellite payloads {Consent to Ship letters}; Integrated Research Product Releases DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 199 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAlDetense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development Website: Performance Goal: Special Nuclear Materlal Detectlon Cumulative percentage of progress toward demonstrating the next generation of technologies and methods to detect Special Nuclear Material movement. {Progress is measured against the baseline criteria and milestones published in the 2006 RED Requirements Document]. FY 2011 target: 80% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Met the annual target of 80% cumulative progress towards demonstrating the next generation of technologies to detect Special Nuclear Material movement. This result is important because it improves US. capability to detect the illicit transport and diversion of special nuclear material (SNM). 2010 Met Achieved the annual target of 80% cumulative percentage of progress towards demonstrating the next generation of technologies to detect Special Nuclear Material movement. This result is important because it improves U.S. capability to detect the illicit transport and diversion of special nuclear material 2009 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 33% cumulative progress towards demonstrating the next generation of technologies to detect Special Nuclear Material movement. This result is important because it improves U.S. capability to detect the illicit transport and diversion of special nuclear material (SNM). 2008 Met Achieved the annual target of 27% cumulative progress towards demonstrating the next generation of technologies to detect Special Nuclear Material movement. This result is important because it improves U.S. capability to detect the illicit transport and diversion of special nuclear material (SNM). 200? Met This result is important because it improves U.S. capability detect the illicit transport and diversion of special nuclear material The cumulative target was 20% (FY 2007 result was Documentation: Program Plaanoadmap document; Memorandum tor Record {unclassified located in certified by DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 200 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiDelense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development Website: Performance Goal: Uranium?235 Production Detection Cumulative percentage of progress toward demonstrating the next generation of technologies and methods to detect Uranium?235 production activities. [Progress is measured against the baseline criteria and milestones published in the 2006 REID Requirements Document?) FY 2011 target: 50% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Met the annual target of 50% cumulative progress towards demonstrating the next generation of technologies to detect uranium production activities. This result is important because it increases the US. capability to detect clandestine nuclear weapons production activities. 2010 lvlet Achieved the annual target of 30% cumulative percentage of progress towards demonstrating the next generation of technologies to detect uranium production activities. This result is important because it increases the US. capability to detect clandestine nuclear weapons production activities. 2009 lvlet Achieved the annual target of 25% cumulative progress towards demonstrating the next generation of technologies to detect uranium production activities. This result is important because it increases the US. capability to detect clandestine nuclear weapons production activities. 2008 Met Achieved the annual target of 20% cumulative progress towards demonstrating the next generation of technologies to detect uranium production activities. This result is important because it increases the US capability to detect clandestine nuclear weapons production activities. 200? lvlet This result is important because it increases the U.S. capability to detect clandestine nuclear weapons production activities. The cumulative target was 15% 2007 result was Documentation: Program PlaniRoadmap document; Memorandum tor Record {unclassified located in certi?ed by DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 201' Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiDetense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Nonproliferation and International Security Website: Performance Goal: Eiimination of Russian Highiy Enriched Uranium (HEU) Annual number of special monitoring visits completed to the tour Russian processing facilities that downblend highly enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium to monitor and confirm the permanent elimination of 30 metric tons of Russian HEU from the Russian weapons stockpile under the HEU Purchase Agreement. FY 2011 target: 24 Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 lvlet Achieved the annual target by completing 24 special monitoring visits to the four Russian uranium-processing facilities subject to the 1993 Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Purchase Agreement. During the 4th 0 four SMVs were completed. This result is important because confidence-building monitoring activities conducted in Russia provide assurance that the Russian Federation is eliminating excess weapons-usable material, thereby adhering to its nonproliferation obligations under the HEU Purchase Agreement. 2010 Met Achieved 100% of the annual target by completing 24 special monitoring visits to the four Russian uranium-processing facilities subject to the 1993 Highly Enriched Uranium Purchase Agreement. This result is important because confidence-building monitoring activities conducted in Russia provide assurance that the Russian Federation is eliminating excess weapons-usable material, thereby adhering to its nonproliferation obligations under the HEU Purchase Agreement. 2009 Met Fully achieved the annual target of 24 special monitoring visits to the four Russian uranium-processing facilities subject to the 1993 Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Purchase Agreement. This result is important because confidence-building monitoring activities conducted in Russia provide assurance that the Russian Federation is eliminating excess weapons- usable material, thereby adhering to its nonproliferation obligations under the HEU Purchase Agreement. Documentation: Sandia National Laboratories database records and original input documents; Physical examination of processing facilities; International Nuclear Export Control program database records and original input documents DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 202 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAtDelense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Nonproliferation and International Security Website: Performance Goal: Gtobai initiatives to Prevent Protiferation Project Funding Cumulative percentage of non?USG (private sector and foreign government) project funding contributions obtained relative to cumulative USG GIPP funding contributions FY 2011 target: 85% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Exceeded the cumulative target of 85% non-USG project funding contributions obtained relative to cumulative USG GIPP funding contributions. In 40, an additional 12 projects were approved, 5 with cost sharing. A cumulative total of 90.2% cost sharing was achieved by 40. This result is important because it maximizes non-USG funding sources to prevent the migration of weapons of mass destruction scientists and personnel to terrorist organizations and states. 2010 lvlet Achieved the cumulative target of 82% project funding contributions obtained relative to cumulative USG GIPP funding contributions. This result is important because it maximizes non-USG funding sources to prevent the migration of weapons of mass destruction scientists and personnel to terrorist organizations and states of concern. 2009 Met Fully achieved the cumulative target of 81 Ex: project funding contributions obtained relative to cumulative USG GIPP funding contributions. This result is important because it maximizes non-USG funding sources to prevent the migration of weapons of mass destruction scientists and personnel to terrorist organizations and states of concern. 2008 Exceeded Exceeded the cumulative target of project funding contributions obtained relative to cumulative USG GIPP funding contributions by 2% for a total of 80%. This result is important because it sustains the economic development of the closed cities and prevents the migration of weapons of mass destruction scientist and personnel to terrorists or states of concern. 200? Met This result is important because it sustains the economic development of the closed cities and prevents the migration of weapons of mass destruction scientists and personnel to terrorists or states of concern. The cumulative target was 75% (FY 2007 result was Documentation: Data in project management database (entered by National Labs); Annual USIC survey of members DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 203 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAtDelense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Nonproliferation and International Security Website: Performance Goal: Nuclear Export ControlIr Program Cumulative number of countries where International Nuclear Export Control program is engaged that have export control systems that meet critical requirements FY 2011 target: 22 Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Exceeded Exceeded the cumulative target of 22 by 5, for a total of 2? countries engaged that have export control systems that meet critical requirements. This number was derived from a review of updates to 7?3 INECP country engagement plans {countries in which INECP has an active program). This result is important because it demonstrates the number of countries that, through engagement by have control lists consistent with the WMD regimes; conduct outreach to producers and trans-shippers of WMD-related commodities; engage in the sharing of iniormation between technical experts, license reviewers, and front-line enforcers; and have customized WMD Commodity Identification Training materials and technical guides. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the cumulative target of 11 countries having export control systems that meet critical requirements. To date, 21 countries have export control systems that meet critical requirements. This result is important because it demonstrates the number of countries that, through engagement by IN ECP (1) have control lists consistent with the WMD regimes; (2) conduct outreach to producers and trans-shippers of lelD-related commodities; (3) engage in the sharing of information between technical experts, license reviewers, and front-line enforcers; and (4) have customized WMD Commodity Identification Training materials and technical guides. 2009 Met Fully achieved the cumulative target of 9 countries having export control systems that meet critical requirements. This result is important because it demonstrates the number of countries that, through engagement by have control lists consistent with the WMD regimes; conduct outreach to producers and trans-shippers of WM D-related commodities; (3) engage in the sharing of information between technical experts, license reviewers, and front-line enforcers; and (4) have customized WMD Commodity Identification Training materials. and technical guides. Documentation: International Nuclear Export Control program database records and original input documents; Sandia National Laboratories database records and original input documents DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 204 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiDelense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Nonproliferation and International Security Website: Performance Goal: Russian Weapons?Usabie Highiy Enriched Uranium (HEU) Eiiminated Cumulative metric tons of Russian weapons?usable HEU that U.8. experts have confirmed as permanently eliminated from the Russian stockpile under the HEU Purchase Agreement FY 2011 target: 432 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of 432 metric tons (MT), by 1MT, for a total of 433 MT by confirming the elimination of an additional 30 MT of HEU. During the fourth quarter, 14 MT was eliminated. This result is important because it provides assurance that weapons-grade material is being eliminated from Russia?s stockpile and no is longer available for use. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the cumulative target of 402 MT by confirming the elimination of additional HEU in FY 2010 resulting in a cumulative total of 403 MT. This result is important because it provides assurance that weapons-grade material is being eliminated from Russia's stockpile and is no longer available for use in the nuclear weapons program. 2009 Exceeded Exceeded the cumulative target of 3?2 MT by confirming the elimination of an additional 33 MT of HEU in FY2009, resulting in cumulative total of 3?5 MT. This result is important because it provides assurance that weapons-grade material is being eliminated from Russia?s stockpile and is no longer available for use in the nuclear weapons program. The cumulative target will be increased to 402 MT in FY2010 in support of the long term target of 500 MT by 2013. 2008 Exceeded Exceeded the cumulative target by confirming the elimination 2008 (target was 342 This result is important because it provides assurance that weapons-grade material is being eliminated from Russia's stockpile, and is no longer available for use in the nuclear weapons program. 200? Met This result is important because it provides assurance that weapons-grade material is being eliminated from Russia's stockpile, and no longer available for use in the nuclear weapons program. The cumulative target was 312 2007 result was 315). Documentation: Status Report on U.S.-Russian Megatons to Megawatts Program Russian HEU to LEU Contract Summary of Shipments, Amounts, Value, Payments, and Schedule (provided by Russian HEU to LEU Contract Summary based on Fiscal Year {provided by Monitoring visit trip reports, process declarations, and mass flow reports DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 205 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfDefense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Nonproliferation and International Security Website: Performance Goal: Safeguards Systems Annual number of safeguards systems deployed and used in international regimes and other countries that address an identified safeguards deficiency FY 2011 target: 5 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Achieved 100% of the annual target by deploying five safeguards systems to international regimes and other countries. In the fourth quarter, four technologies were transferred to South Africa, including two UfPu Inspection Systems and two ISOCS Inspection Systems. Finally, the code was transferred to Euratom to allow for independent and more efficient verification of spent fuel in storage ponds. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the cumulative target of 4 safeguards systems deployed {by deploying a total of 10) and used in international regimes and other countries. To date, 19 safeguards systems have been deployed and used in international regimes and other countries. This result is important because it allows international regimes and countries to properly account for and control nuclear materials to prevent use in illicit activities. 2009 Met Fully achieved the annual target of 3 safeguards systems deployed and used in international regimes and other countries. This result is important because it allows international regimes and countries to properly account for and control nuclear materials to prevent use in illicit activities. Documentation: Shipping Records; Technical reports produced as a result of the technology being transferred; Reports {generated for each of the countries with which INECP works.) DOE FY 20} 1 Armani Performance Report 206 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiDelense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation Website: Performance Goal: Highiy Enriched Uranium (HEU) Conversion to Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) Cumulative metric tons of Highly?Enriched Uranium converted to Low? Enriched Uranium. FY 2011 target: 13.5 Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of 13.5 MT of HEU downblended to LEU by 0.5 MT, a total of 14 MT. This result is important because it prevents the theftidiversion of vulnerable nuclear weapons for use by terrorists. 2010 Met Achieved annual target by blending down a cumulative total of 12.6 metric tons (MTs) of HEU to LEU. This result is important because it prevents the theitidiversion of excess HEU. 2009 Met Fully achieved the annual target by blending down a cumulative total of 11.? metric tons (MTs) oi HEU to LEU. This result is important because it prevents the theftidiversion of excess HEU. 2008 Met Achieved 97% of the annual target by blending down a cumulative total oi 10.? metric tons of HEU to LEU. This result is important because it prevents the theftidiversion of excess HEU. 200? Met This result is important because it prevents the theftidiversion of excess HEU. The cumulative target was 9.5 200? result was 9.8). Documentation: Montth U.S. monitoring visits to the downblending sites to validate process results; Contract deliverable downblending and status reports DOE FY 20} 1 Armani Performance Report 20? Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAtDetense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation Website: Performance Goal: Matertat Protection, Control and Upgrades Cumulative number oi buildings containing weapons usable material with completed upgrades FY 2011 target: 218 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Achieved the annual target of upgrades to 218 buildings containing weapons-usable material. As of (3-4, the program has completed 5 buildings tor a cumulative total of 218 buildings. This result is important because it prevents the thefttdiversion of vulnerable nuclear weapons for use by terrorists. 2010 Met Fully achieved the target by completing MPC8A upgrades at a cumulative total of 213 buildings, an increase of 3 buildings in FY 2010. This result is important because it prevents the thefttdiversion of vulnerable nuclear weapons for use by terrorists. 2009 Met Fully achieved the cumulative target by completing upgrades at a cumulative total of 210 buildings. This result is important because it prevents the thetUdiversion ot vulnerable nuclear weapons for use by terrorists. 2008 Met Achieved 96% of the annual target by completing upgrades at a cumulative total oi 181 buildings. This result is important because it prevents the theittdiversion of vulnerable nuclear weapons tor use by terrorists. 200? Met -- Documentation: Statements ot Work and Contracts for Security Upgrade Construction and System Installation; Progress Reports from Contractors and Russian Sites; Assurance Visit Reports; Reports by Project; Quarterly Reports by Project; Annual Close-Out Reports by Project; Metric Information Management On-line Database DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 208 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiDetense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation Website: Performance Goal: Materiai Protection, Control, and Reguiations Cumulative number oi regulations in the development phase for the Russian Federation and FSU countries. FY 2011 target: 198 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of 198 MPCEQA regulations placed in the development phase. As of the end of Q4, the program has placed a cumulative total of 204 regulations in the development phase, exceeding the annual target by 6 regulations. This result is important because it prevents the theftidiversion of excess HEU. 2010 Not Met Largely achieved the annual target by placing a cumulative number of 185 regulations in the development phase for Russian and other FSU countries. The target was missed because the US Project Team's Russian and Belorussian counterparts have experienced significant staffing issues over the past year, causing delays in the pace of deliverables related to regulations development. Because this target was missed, the schedule for placing regulations in the development phase is behind schedule, but a recovery schedule is in place to ensure all delinquent regulations are in the development phase by the end of FY 2011. Therefore, there is no impact to completing the goal. 2009 Met Achieved 98% of the annual target by placing a cumulative total of 165 regulations in the development phase for the Russian Federation and FSU countries. This result is important because it prevents the theftidiversion of excess HEU. Documentation: Regulatory team-maintained database to track development and adoption of each regulation by task order and date DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 209 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfDetense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation Website: Performance Goal: Megaports with Host Country Cost Sharing Cumulative number oi Megaports with host country cost?sharing, resulting in estimating $40 million less cost to the US. program (estimated cost sharing value} FY 2011 target: 14f$?3 million Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Not Met Did not meet the annual target. As of the fourth quarter of FY 2011 the program has completed a cumulative 13 Megaports with cost-sharing, with no additional cost-sharing agreements occurring during the first or second quarter. The target for FY 2011 was 14 Megaports with cost-sharing. The one Megaport with cost-sharing planned for FY 201 1 has shifted into FY 2012 and will be completed in the 1st quarter of that year. It appears the program is unlikely to reach the target of million in host-country funding in FY 2011. The current value is $49.8 million. This result is important because these cost sharing agreements result in reduced costs for the United States. 2010 Not Met Did not fully achieve the cumulative target of 12 Megaports with host country cost-sharing (Estimated cost sharing value}. This result is important because these cost sharing agreements result in reduced costs for the US. Second Line of Defense Program. The Program fell short of the annual cumulative target as three Megaports have been delayed into FY 2011, thereby lowering the cumulative number of host countries. with cost sharing down to 9. for. FY 2010, resulting in a cost sharing value of. $43 million. The target was missed because. US Project Team's (USPT) Flussian and Belorussian counterparts have experienced significant staffing. issues over the. past year, causing delays in the pace of deliverables related to regulations development. Because. this target was. missed, the schedule for placing regulations. in the development phase is behind. schedule, but has little. impact on achieving. the goal. 2009 Not Met behind. in. achieving the annual target of. Megaports with $40 million. in. host country cost sharing by having a cumulative total of Megaports with. host country cost sharing. . This result is important because. these cost sharing agreements result in reduced costs. forthe U.S.. Second Line of Defense. Program. 2008 Not Met Did not achieve. the annual target of completing. five Megaports under a cost-sharing arrangement. Completed three cost-sharing. Megaports. with estimated cost-savings to the U.S.. Government of $14 million. (target was Sports with. a total estimated cost?savings of $24 million}. This result is important because these cost sharing agreements result in reduced costs for the US. Second Line of Defense Program. The annual target was missed because of schedule delays at the port of Zeebrugge in Belgium and at the port of Veracruz in Mexico. Because this target was missed the decreased costs to the US program will not be achieved until early 2009. Documentation: Schedules. trip reports. acceptance testing documentation DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 210 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAfDetense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation Website: Performance Goal: Second Line of Defense Sires Cumulative number of Second Line of Defense (SLD) sites with nuclear detection equipment installed (Cumulative number of Megaports completed} FY 2011 target: 483(45} Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Not Met The program did not achieve annual target of 463 Second Line of Defense sites with nuclear detection equipment, which includes 45 megaports. The program completed 460 SLD sites, including 39 megaports. Achieving this result is important because it provides host governments with the technical means to detect, deter and interdict illicit trafficking of nuclear and other radioactive materials. Because this target was missed, deployment of detectors for high-transit ports must be delayed in the coming fiscal years. 2010 Not Met below annual target by achieving installations of radiation detection equipment at a cumulative total of 399 sites {including 34 Megaports}. This result is important because it provides host governments with the technical means to detect, deter and interdict illicit trafficking of nuclear and other radioactive materials. The Program fell short of the annual cumulative target by seven Megaports. The Core program completed 5? sites, which exceeded its target of 55 sites. Because the target was not met, the program will accelerate implementation of construction at port sites and plans to complete all ports by the end of FY 2011.. 2009 Exceeded Exceeded the cumulative target by completing installations of radiation detection equipment at a cumulative total of 335 sites {including 2? Megaports). This result is important because it provides host governments with the technical means to detect, deter and interdict illicit trafficking of nuclear and other radioactive materials. 2008 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by completing installations of radiation detection equipment at a cumulative total of 232 sites {including 19 Megaports). This result is important because it provides host governments with the technical means to detect, deter and interdict illicit trafficking of nuclear and other radioactive materials. 2007 Not Met This result is important because it provides host governments with the technical means to detect, deter and interdict illicit trafficking of nuclear and other radioactive materials. The cumulative target of 173 (12) was missed (FY 200? result was 162 because delays in several countries impacted the program's ability to complete the 63 sites anticipated in FY 2007. Because this target was missed there is a reduced capability in these countries to detect and deter illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials in these countries. Documentation: Schedules, trip reports, acceptance testing documentation DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 211' Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiDelense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Elimination of Weapons?Grade Plutonium Production Website: Performance Goal: Constructing Zheieznogorsic Fossii Pianl? Cumulative percentage of progress towards constructing a fossil plant in Zheleznogorsk facilitating the shut down of one weapons?grade plutonium production reactor FY 2011 target: 100% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Met the cumulative target of completing 100% of the U.S.-iunded construction complete. Critical Decision-4 (Project Closeout} was approved by the NNSA on July 5, 2011. This result is important because completion of the fossil fuel plant will replace energy capacity from the last Russian plutonium production reactor ensuring it is permanently shut down and the production of weapons-grade plutonium is eliminated. 2010 Not Met Largely achieved the annual target through a cumulative percentage completion of 92% (target was The annual target was missed because of insufficient manpower to expedite work and recover schedule. Because this target was missed, delivery of hot water to Zheleznogorsk will be delayed by at least three months. This result is important because completion of the fossil fuel plant will replace energy capacity from the last Russian plutonium production reactors allowing it to be shutdown, and the production of weapons-grade plutonium to be eliminated. 2009 Exceeded Exceeded the cumulative target of completion in FY 2009 by achieving 7?1 completion. This result is important because completion of the fossil fuel plant will replace energy capacity from the last Russian plutonium production reactors allowing it to be shutdown, and the production of weapons-grade plutonium to be eliminated. 2008 Not Met Did not achieve the annual target of 62.6% completion (completed 46% of the fossil plant}. This result is important because completion of the fossil fuel plant will replace energy capacity from one of the three remaining Russian plutonium production reactors allowing it to be shutdown and the production of weapons-grade plutonium to be eliminated. The annual target was missed because of delays in design, procurement. and construction. Because this target was missed, the ADE-2 reactor may not be shut down in 2010 producing as much as 0.4 metric tons of plutonium in 2011. This additional 6.4 metric tons of plutonium, however. will be offset by the early shutdown of the two Seversk reactors. 2007 Met This result is important because completion of the fossil fuel plant will replace energy capacity from one of the three remaining Russian plutonium production reactors allowing it to be shutdown, and the production of weapons?grade plutonium to be eliminated. The cumulative target was 33.6% (FY 2007 result was Documentation: Zheleznogorsk Progress and Cost Performance Report DOE FY 20} 1 Armani Performance Report 212 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiDelense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Elimination of Weapons?Grade Plutonium Production Website: Performance Goal: Fiussian Weapons?Grade Plutonium Production Annual percentage of Russian weapons?grade plutonium production capability eliminated from its 2003 baseline of 1.2 MTiyr (0.4 MT per reactor per year}. FY 2011 target: 100% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Achieved the annual target of 100% reduction in the production of weapons-grade plutonium. All three reactors were shut down ahead of schedule. Two Seversk reactors were shut down in April and June 2008; Zheleznogorsk reactor was shut down in April 2010. This result is important because it is part of the mission need to shut down the last three plutonium-production reactors in Russia. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of reduction in the production of weapons-grade plutonium by completing the remaining reactor in FY 2010. All three reactors were shut down ahead of schedule. Two Seversk reactors were shut down ahead of schedule in April and June 2008; Zheleznogorsk reactor was shut down in April 2010. This result is important because it is part of the mission need to shut down the last three plutonium-production reactors in Russia. 2009 Met Fully achieved the annual target of BT81: reduction in the production of weapons-grade plutonium. Two oi the three reactors were shut down ahead of schedule in April and June 2008. This result is important because it is part of the mission need to shut down the last three plutonium-production reactors in Russia. Documentation: Seversk Reports No. 5? dated May 2008 and No. 58 dated July 21, 2008; Zheleznogorsk Progress and Cost Periorrnance Report DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 213 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiDetense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Fissile Materials Disposition Website: Performance Goal: Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuei Fabrication Cumulative percentage of the design, construction, and cold start?up activities completed for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility. FY 2011 target: 62% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Not Met Did not meet the FY 2011 target of 52% cumulative progress for the MOX facility by achieving 57.9% cumulative progress. The project achieved 93% of the 4th quarter target with cumulative Cost and Schedule Performance Indexes of 0.93 each. Roof construction on the fuel fabrication facility continued. Total volume of concrete placed per month in the quarter surpassed prior months. The Technical Support Building continued with notable progress. Roofing, siding and interior work are well underway. Fabrication and delivery of equipment, glovebox shells, internal components, and electrical items continue with challenges. The annual target was missed in large part due to the lack of qualified subcontractorsisuppliers due to Nuclear Renaissance (dormancy). IMPACT: Because this target was missed, the project remains behind the early finish completion date of June 2015. This is 16 months ahead of the contract specified October 2016 milestone date. The projected completion date of September 2015 was maintained through resequencing of concrete placements and the focus on the active gallery module installations. This result is important because it demonstrates progress toward the Department?s goal of disposing of 34 metric tons of surplus 0.8. weapons-grade plutonium. 2010 Not Met Largely achieved the target of completing a cumulative total of 49% of the facility and equipment design, construction, and cold start-up activities for the MOX facility. The project is at 48% completion as of the end of the 4th quarter which results in achieving 98% of the annual target. This goal was largely achieved despite significant challenges tranisitioning to a new subcontractor and equipment vendors struggling with compliance. This result is important because it demonstrates progress toward the Department's goal of disposing of 34 metric tons of surplus US. weapons? grade plutonium. 2009 Met Achieved the cumulative target by completing a total of 38.3% of the facility and equipment design, construction, and cold start?up activities for the MOX facility. This result is important because it demonstrates progress toward the Department?s goal of disposing of 34 metric tons of surplus US. weapons?grade plutonium. 2008 Met Achieved the cumulative target of 30% of the facility and equipment design, construction, and cold start?up activities for the MOX facility. The initial estimated impact from the 2008 appropriation reduction has been mitigated for FY 2008 activities, however postponing efforts into the outyears has resulted in a request to change the project?s cost and schedule baseline. This result is important because it demonstrates progress toward the Department?s goal of disposing of at least 34 metric tons of surplus 0.8. weapons?grade plutonium. 200? Met This result is important because it demonstrates progress toward the Department?s goal of disposing of at least 34 metric tons of surplus U.S. weapons?grade plutonium. The annual target was 24% (FY 200? result was Documentation: Earned Value Management System (EVMS) data from MOX Status Fieport Earned value determined through physical examination, observation, computation, and inspection; as well as original documents such as a signed statement or email verifying target completion DOE FY 20} 1 Armani Performance Report 214 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAKDetense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Fissile Materials Disposition Website: Performance Goal: US. Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Downbfended Cumulative amount of surplus U.S. highly enriched uranium (HEU) down?blended or shipped for down?blending. FY 2011 target: 135 Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Exceeded Exceeded the target of down-blending or shipping for down-blending 136 cumulative metric tons of surplus U.S. HEU. The program has achieved over 100% of the year end target by downblendingishipping a cumulative 137.1 metric tons of HEU. All downblending activities for this fiscal year were completed on schedule and under budget: This result is important because it is contributing to the Department??s goal of disposing of surplus U.S. HEU: 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the annual cumulative target of down-blending or shipping for down-blending 130 cumulative metric tons of surplus U.S. HEU. The program has down-blended 133 MT of surplus HEU through the end of the year resulting in completing 102% of the cumulative target. This result is important because it is contributing to the Department's goal of disposing of surplus U.S. HEU. 2009 Exceeded Exceeded the cumulative target by down-blending or shipping for down-blending 12724 cumulative metric tons of surplus U.S. HEU. This result is important because it is contributing to the Department?s goal of disposing of surplus US. HEU. 2008 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by down-blending or shipping for down-blending 14 metric tons (MT) of surplus U.S. HEU in FY 2008, for a cumulative amount of 11? MT. The target was 112 MT and shipments were accelerated due to DOT certification expiring on certain existing shipping containers. This result is important because it is contributing to the Department?s goal of disposing of surplus U.S. HEU. 200? Met This result is important because it is contributing to the Department?s goal of disposing of surplus U.S. HEU. The cumulative target was 103MT 2007 result was Documentation: BWXT Y-12 program status documents - Physical examination and inspection as documented in material control and accounting data forms and reports that the site is required to maintain under Special Nuclear Materials requirements; Original documents such as a signed statement or email verifying target completion DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 215 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAiDetense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Fissile Materials Disposition Website: Performance Goal: Waste Sofidiffcaticn Building (W88) Cumulative percentage of the design, construction, and cold start?up activities completed for the Waste Solidification Building FY 2011 target: 65% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by completing of the facility and equipment design, construction, and cold start-up activities for the WSB. The project achieved 108% of the fourth quarter target with cumulative Cost and Schedule Performance Indices of 1.06 and 0.88, respectively. The main focus of work is installation of ventilation ductwork, piping, cable trays, and fireproof coatings in the process building. System turnovers from construction to startup testing have started. This result is important because it demonstrates progress toward the Department's goal of disposing of 34 metric tons of surplus U.S. weapons-grade plutonium. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of completing a cumulative percentage total of 45% of the facility and equipment design, construction, and cold start-up activities for the WSB. The project is at 47% completion as of the end of the 4th quarter resulting in achieving 104% of the annual target. This result is important because it demonstrates progress toward the Department's goal of disposing of 34 metric tons of surplus U.S. weapons-grade plutonium. . 2009 Not Met behind schedule in achieving the cumulative target by completing a total of 26.4% of the facility and equipment design, construction, and cold start-up activities for the WEB. The annual target will be missed because long-lead equipment procurements, fabrication of the cementation units, and balance of plant construction activities have not been performed as early as originally planned. However, vendor and subcontractor completion dates remain unchanged and no impact to the project completion date is expected. This result is important because it demonstrates progress toward the Department??s goal of disposing of 34 metric tons of surplus U.S. weapons-grade plutonium. Documentation: EVMS and cost data from the WSB consolidated status reports - Earned value determined through physical examination, observation, computation, and inspection; as well as Original documents such as a signed statement or email verifying target completion DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 216 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAtDetense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Global Threat Reduction Initiative Website: Performance Goal: Higniy Enriched Uranium (HEU) Reactors Converted or Shutdown Cumulative number oi HEU reactors converted or verified as shutdown prior to conversion. FY 2011 target: T5 Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target to convert or verify the shutdown of a cumulative T5 reactors; a cumulative total of 7?6 research reactors have been converted or verified as shutdown. In the first quarter, one new research reactor was verified as shutdown prior to conversion or converted (China). There were no research reactors that were verified as shutdown prior to conversion or converted in the second quarter. In the third quarter, there were three new research reactors that were verified as shutdown prior to conversion or converted [Czech Republic, Russia In the fourth quarter there were no new reactors converted or verified as shutdown. This result is important because to date conversion of these reactors has resulted in HEU avoidance of ~360tkg per year. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of converting or verifying the shutdown of a cumulative 7'1 reactors; a cumulative total of T2 research reactors have been converted or verified as shutdown. In the first quarter, no new research reactors were verified as shutdown prior to conversion or converted. In the second quarter, three research reactors were verified as shutdown (FS-4 and FS-5 reactors at Bauman Moscow State Technical University in Russia and STRELA reactor in Russia) and one research reactor was converted (Kyoto University Research Reactor in Japan). In the third quarter, one research reactor was shut down (RECH-2 research reactor in Chile}. This result is important because to date conversion of these reactors has resulted in HEU avoidance of ~360/kg per year. 2009. Not Met Nearly met the annual target of converting or verifying the shutdown of a cumulative 68 HEU reactors; a cumulative total of 6? research reactors have been converted or verified as shutdown. In the first quarter, one new research reactor was verified as shutdown prior to conversion. In the second quarter, no additional reactors were converted or shutdown prior to conversion. In the third quarter, one additional research reactor, in Bulgaria, was shut down prior to conversion. In the fourth quarter, three additional research reactors were converted (University of Wisconsin, BRR in Hungary, and NRAD in Idaho}. Through September 2009, a cumulative total of 6? research reactors have been converted or verified as shutdown prior to conversion (an additional five reactors converted or verified as shutdown prior to conversion in FY 2009). Action Plan: The conversion of the KUR research reactor in .Japan did not occur because the French government directed that the shipment of the LEU replacement fuel would not be allowed through the Gulf of Aden due to pirate activity; alternative shipping solutions are under review, with expected delivery of the replacement fuel expected in Japan during the first quarter of FY 2010. This result is important because to date conversion of these reactors has resulted in HEU avoidance of ~335rkg per year. 2008 Met Achieved the annual target by converting or verifying the shutdown of a cumulative 62 HEU reactors. The annual target reflects approved revisions due to FY2008 funds and the Continuing Resolution. This result is important because to date conversion of these reactors has reduced the amount of civil commerce in HEU by 300r?kg per year. 200? Met This result is important because to date conversion of these reactors has reduced the amount of civil commerce in HEU by 275mg per year. The cumulative target was 53 2007 result was 55}. Documentation: GTRI Scorecard; Written Notification of conversion; Conversion Report DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 217 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAlDetense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Global Threat Reduction Initiative Website: Performance Goal: Nuclear and Radiological Sites Protected Cumulative number oi buildings with high priority nuclear and radiological materials secured. FY 2011 target: 1,081 Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of securing a cumulative total of 1,081 buildings with high-priority nuclear and radiological materials; a cumulative total of 1 ,18? buildings have been secured. In the first quarter, an additional 26 international buildings and 8 domestic buildings were secured. In the second quarter, an additional 28 international and 8 domestic buildings were secured. In the third quarter, an additional 33 international and 1 1 domestic buildings were secured. In the iourth quarter, an additional 38 international and 68 domestic buildings were secured. This result is important because it reduces the risk posed by nuclear and radioactive materials worldwide that could be used in crude nuclear bombs and radiological dispersal devices. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of securing a cumulative total 01855 buildings with high-priority nuclear and radiological materials; a cumulative total of 9?1 buildings have been secured. In the first quarter, an additional 9 international buildings and 12 domestic buildings were secured. In the second quarter, an additional 18 international buildings and 2? domestic buildings were secured. In the third quarter, an additional 29 international buildings and 19 domestic buildings were secured. In the fourth quarter; an additional 45 international buildings and 10? domestic buildings were secured. This result is important because it reduces the risk posed by nuclear and radioactive materials worldwide that could be used in crude nuclear bombs and radiological dispersal devices. 2009. Exceeded. Exceeded (101.8%) the annual target of securing a cumulative total of 894 buildings with high-priority nuclear and radiological materials; a cumulative total of T05 buildings have been secured. In the first quarter, an additional 21 international buildings and two domestic buildings were secured. In the second quarter, an additional 22 international and 11 domestic buildings were secured. In the third quarter. an additional two international and one domestic buildings were secured. In the fourth quarter, an additional 84 international buildings and 48 domestic buildings were secured. Through September 2009. a cumulative total of 7?05 buildings have been secured (an additional 191 buildings in FY 2009}. This result is important because it reduces the risk posed by nuclear and radioactive materials worldwide that could be used in crude nuclear bombs and radiological dispersal devices. 2008 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of protecting a cumulative total of 730 vulnerable, high?priority international radiological sites, for a cumulative total of 7?55 sites protected. The annual target reflects approved revisions due to FY2008 funds and the Continuing Ftesolution. This result is important because it reduces the risk posed by radioactive materials worldwide that could be used in radiological dispersal devices. The cumulative target calculation methodology has changed for FY 2009; the recalculated FY 2008 target is 516. 200? leet This result is important because it reduces the risk posed by radioactive materials worldwide that could be used in radiological dispersal devices. The cumulative target was 590 (FY 2007 result was 599). Documentation: Scorecard; notification of protection; Work team reports; Global Threat Reduction Initiative Programmatic Guidelines for Site Prioritization and Protection Implementation DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 218 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSAlDetense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Global Threat Reduction Initiative Website: Performance Goal: Nuclear Material Removed Cumulative number oi kilograms of vulnerable nuclear material (HEU and plutonium) removed or disposed FY 2011 target: 3,29? Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Not Met Missed the annual target to remove or dispose of a cumulative total of 3,29? kilograms of HEU and plutonium; a cumulative total of 3,125 kilograms have been removed or disposition. The FY 2011 target slippage is due to lack of requested budget being provided on-time. GTRI is not a level-of-effort program, and this work is implemented through large contracts with foreign governments and private industries. GTRI's removal efforts require up-front funding for contracts to implement these large and complex threat reduction projects that take 8-10 months or more to implement. The FY 2011 target of a cumulative total of 3,29? kilograms was based on receiving the President's FY 2011 request of $559 million. However, the DNN appropriation was $414 million less the request; DOE allocated $123 million of the cuts to GTRI and funds arrived nine months into the fiscal year and were incrementally allotted due to the multiple continuing resolutions. The significantly reduced and delayed funding has resulted in the program not being able to award critical contracts needed to complete the removals of HEU andfor plutonium that were originally estimated. In the first quarter. an additional 232 kilograms of HEU were removed {43.5 kilograms from Poland. 88 kilograms from Belarus, 13.1 kilograms from Serbia. 50.? kilograms from Ukraine, 1.4 kilograms from Canada, 3.4 kilograms from Italy, 12.? kilograms from Belgium, and 19.? kilograms from the United States) There were no additional kilograms of HEU removed or disposed of during the second or third quarters. In the fourth quarter an additional 39.? kilograms of HEU were removed or disposed of (33 kilograms down blended in Kazakhstan, 5.8 kilograms removed from South Africa, and 0.9 kilograms removed from Canada}. This re3ult is important because this effort will minimize the amount of weapons?usable material around the world. 2010. Exceeded. Exceeded the annual target of removing a cumulative total of kilograms of HEU and plutonium; a cumulative total of 2,852.8 kilograms have been removed. In the first quarter, an additional 192.2 kilograms of HEU were removed (18? kilograms from Poland and 5.2 kilograms from Libya). In the second quarter, an additional 183.2 kilograms of HEU was removed (13?.4 kilograms from Poland, 5 kilograms from Japan, 12.4 kilograms from Israel, 5.3 kilograms from Turkey, 4.9 kilograms from Italy, and 18.2 kilograms from Chile). In the third quarter, an additional 111.4 kilograms of HEU was removed (55.9 kilograms from Ukraine, 43.5 kilograms from Poland, and 12 kilograms from the Czech Republic). In the fourth quarter, an additional 49.4 kilograms of HEU was removed {43.5 kilograms from Poland, kilograms from the United Kingdom, and 2.2 kilograms from the United States). This result is important because this effort will minimize the amount of weapons-usable material around the world. 2009 Exceeded Exceeded (100.2%) the annual target of removing a cumulative total of 2,311 kilograms of HEU and plutonium; a cumulative total of 2,31? kilograms have been removed. In the first quarter, an additional 154.5 kilograms of HEU were removed from Hungary and 8.9 kilograms of HEU were removed from Canada. In the second quarter, no additional kilograms of HEU and plutonium were removed. In the third quarter, an additional kilograms of HEU were removed from Kazakhstan, 53.8 kilograms of HEU were removed from Romania, 14.8 kilograms of HEU were removed from Australia, and 29.0 kilograms of plutonium were removed from Italy. In the fourth quarter, an additional 18.0 kilograms of HEU were removed from Hungary, 11.8 kilograms of HEU were removed from Italy, and 4.8 kilograms of HEU were removed from Taiwan. Through September 2009, a cumulative total of 2,318.8 kilograms of HEU and plutonium have been removed [an additional 38? kilograms in FY 2009;. This result is imgortant because this effort will minimize the DOE FY 20]} Annual Performance Report 21' 9 amount of weapons?usable material around the world. 2008 lvlet Achieved 91% of the annual target of removing a cumulative total of 2,133 kilograms of HEU and plutonium, resulting in the removal of 1,948 kilograms of HEU. The annual target reflects approved revisions due to FY2008 funds and the Continuing Resolution. This result is important because this effort will minimize the amount of weapons?usable material around the world. 200? lvlet This result is important because this effort will minimize the amount of weapons?usable material around the world. The cumulative target was 1,6?1 (FY 2007? result was Documentation: Scorecard; Notification of removal; Ftemove Fteport DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 220 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: Nuclear Nonproliferation Program: Global Threat Reduction Initiative Website: Performance Goal: Fiadr'ofogfcaf Sources Removed Cumulative number oi excess domestic radiological sources removed or disposed FY 2011 target: 28,000 Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target to remove a cumulative total of 28,000 excess domestic radiological sources; a cumulative total 0128,?43 sources have been removed. In the first quarter an additional 565 sources were removed. In the second quarter, an additional 1,092 sources were removed. In the third quarter, an additional 200 sources were removed. In the fourth quarter, an additional 7'14 sources were removed. This result is important because it minimizes the amount of excess and unwanted radioactive material that could be used in radiological dispersal devices. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of removing a cumulative total of 25,214 excess domestic radiological sources; a cumulative total 0126,172 sources have been removed. In the first quarter an additional 1,258 sources were removed. In the second quarter, an additional 579 sources were removed. In the third quarter, an additional 520 sources were removed. In the fourth quarter, an additional 806 sources were removed. This result is important because it minimizes the amount of excess and unwanted radioactive material that could be used in radiological dispersal devices. 2009 Exceeded Exceeded (104.6%) the annual target of removing a cumulative total of 22,000 excess domestic radiological sources; a cumulative total of 23,014 sources have been removed. In the first quarter, an additional 1,656 sources were removed. In the second quarter, an additional 631 sources were removed. In the third quarter, an additional 1,306 sources were removed. In the fourth quarter, an additional 462 sources were removed. Through September 2006, a cumulative total of 23,014 sources have been removed {an additional 4,358 sources in FY 2009}. This result is important because it minimizes the amount of excess and unwanted radioactive material that could be used in radiological dispersal devices. 2008 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by removing a cumulative total of 18,656 excess domestic radiological sources. The annual target reflects approved revisions due to FY2008 funds and the Continuing Resolution. This result is important because this effort will minimize the amount of excess and unwanted radioactive material that could be used in radiological dispersal devices. 2007 Met This result is important because this effort will minimize the amount of excess and unwanted radioactive material that could be used in radiological dispersal devices. The cumulative target was 15,455 (FY 200? result was 15,503). Documentation: Scorecard; Montth notification of removals; Work team reports; Radiological recovery life cycle plan; GTFII website DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 221' Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSA Program: Naval Reactors Website: Performance Goal: A18 Fteactor Piant Design Cumulative percentage of completion on the next?generation aircraft carrier reactor plant design FY 2011 target: 94% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 lvlet Fully achieved the annual target of completing a cumulative 94% of the next-generation aircraft carrier reactor plant design. In the 4th quarter of FY 2011, the program delivered major core components to the shipyard and installation of the closure head on the lead core. This result is important because it provides the Navy with next-generation aircraft carrier propulsion plant technology that increases core energy, provides nearly three times the electric plant generating capability and will require half of the reactor department sailor's needed as compared to today's CVNs. 2010 lvlet Fully met the target of 91% cumulative percentage of completion on the next-generation aircraft carrier reactor plant design. This result is important because it provides the Navy with next-generation aircraft carrier propulsion plant technology that increases core energy, provides nearly three times the electric plant generating capability and will require half of the reactor department sailor's needed as compared to today's CVNs. 2009 Met Achieved 100% of the annual target by completing a cumulative 88% of the next-generation aircraft carrier reactor plant design. This result is important because it provides the Navy with next-generation aircraft carrier propulsion plant technology that increases core energy, provides nearly three times the electric plant generating capability and will require half of the reactor department sailor?s needed as compared to today's CVNs. The annual target will be increased to 91% in FY 2010 in support of the long-term target of completing 100% of the next-generation aircraft carrier reactor plant design by 2015. 2008 Met Achieved the annual target by completing a cumulative 85% of the next-generation aircraft carrier reactor plant design. This result is important because it provides the Navy with next-generation aircraft carrier propulsion plant technology that increases core energy, provides nearly three times the electric plant generating capability and will require half of the reactor department sailor's needed as compared to today's CVNs. 2007 Met This result is important because it provides the Navy with next-generation aircraft carrier propulsion plant technology that increases core energy, provides nearly three times the electric plant generating capability and will require half of the reactor department sailor's needed as compared to today's CVNs. This will enable the Navy to meet current forecasted operational requirements. The cumulative target was 80% (FY 200? result was Documentation: CVN 21 Propulsion Plant Planning Estimate and Actual Reporting DOE FY 20} 1 Armani Performance Report 222 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSA Program: Naval Reactors Website: Performance Goal: Fieet Fieactor Piant Operations Cumulative miles steamed of safe, reliable, militarily effective nuclear propulsion plant operation supporting national security requirements FY 2011 target: 146 million miles Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 lvlet Fully achieved the annual target of completing 146 million miles safely steamed. In the fourth quarter of FY 2011, nuclear-powered warships steamed approximately ?08,141 miles. This result is important because it measures the safety and reliability of operating nuclear propulsion plants. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded target of 144 million cumulative miles steamed, of safe, reliable, militarily effective nuclear propulsion plant operation supporting National security requirements by completing 144,982,825 miles safely steamed. This result is important because it measures the safety and reliability of operating nuclear propulsion plants. 2009 Met Achieved 100% of the annual target by completing 142 million cumulative miles safely steamed. This result is important because it measures the safety and reliability of operating nuclear propulsion plants. The annual target will be increased to 144 million miles in FY 2010 in support of the long-term target of 154 million miles safely steamed by 2015. 2008 lvlet Achieved the annual target by completing 140 million cumulative miles safely steamed. This result is important because it measures the safety and reliability of operating nuclear propulsion plants. 200? lvlet This result is important because it measures the safety and reliability of operating nuclear propulsion plants. The cumulative target was 138 million miles (FY 2007 result was 138 million miles}. Documentation: Commissioned Ship Operating Reports (automated quarterly data from the fleet} DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 223 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSA Program: Naval Reactors Website: Performance Goal: Na vai Reactors Facility Condition index Annual Naval Reactors complex?wide aggregate Facility Condition Index, as measured by deferred maintenance per replacement plant value for all program facilities and infrastructure FY 2011 target: 4% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Fully achieved the annual target of a Facility Condition Index of 4 percent or less by achieving In the fourth quarter of FY 2011, the Program completed approximately 25% of planned maintenance activities across all four sites. This result is important because it assesses the operational condition of program facilities to ensure program infrastructure is maintained in order to accomplish mission activities in the safest, most reliable, most effective, and most efficient manner. 2010 Mai Fully met the target of 4% Annual Naval Reactors complex-wide aggregate Facility Condition Index, as measured by deferred maintenance per replacement plant value for all program facilities and infrastructure. This result is important because it assesses the operational condition of program facilities to ensure program infrastructure is maintained in order to accomplish mission activities in the safest, most reliable, most effective, and most efficient manner. 2009 Met Achieved 100% of the annual target by achieving a Facility Condition Index of less than This result is important because it assesses the operational condition of program facilities to ensure program infrastructure is maintained in order to accomplish mission activities in the safest, most reliable, most effective, and most efficient manner. The annual target will remain constant in FY 2010 at achieving a FCI of less than 2008 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by achieving a Facility Condition Index (FCI) of less than This result is important because it assesses the operational condition of program facilities to ensure program infrastructure is maintained in order to accomplish mission activities in the safest, most reliable, most effective, and most efficient manner. 2007 Met This result is important because it assesses the operational condition of program facilities to ensure program infrastructure is maintained in order to accomplish mission activities in the safest, most reliable, most effective, and most efficient manner, The annual target was 5% (FY 200? result was Documentation: Deferred maintenance and plant replacement value reported in DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 224 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSA Program: Naval Reactors Website: Performance Goal: Program Operations Annual percentage of program operations that have no adverse impact on human health or the quality of the environment FY 2011 target: 100% Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met Fully achieved the annual target of ensuring that 100 percent of program operations have no adverse impact on human health or the qualityr of the environment. A review of radiation monitoring results through the fourth quarter of FY 2011 confirms that Program operations have had no adverse impact on human health or the environment during the quarter. This result is important because it assesses human health and environmental risks associated with program operations. 2010 Met Fully achieved the annual target of ensuring that 100 percent of program operations have no adverse impact on human health or the quality of the environment. The performance of the Program in the areas of environmental, safety, and health is rated satisfactory based on continuing assessments performed in these areas. This result is important because it assesses human health and environmental risks associated with program operations. 2009 Met Achieved 100% of the annual target by ensuring that 100% of program operations have no adverse impact on human health or the quality,r of the environment. This result is important because it assesses human health and environmental risks associated with program operations. The annual target will remain constant in FY 2010 at ensuring 100% of program operations have no adverse impact on human health or the quality of the environment. 2008 Met Achieved the annual target by ensuring that 100% of program operations have no adverse impact on human health or the quality of the environment. This result is important because it assesses human health and environmental risks associated with program operations. 2007 Met This result is important because it assesses human health and environmental risks associated with program operations. The annual target was 100% (FY 2007 result was 100%). Documentation: Annual Monitoring Report - monitors the scheduled maintenance work that is completed vs. scheduled maintenance work that is deferred. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 225 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSA Program: Naval Reactors Website: Performance Goal: of Test Fla-actor Plants Annual utilization factor for operation of test reactor plants FY 2011 target: 90% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Not Met Largely achieved the annual target achieving a utilization factor of 88.6% {target was The fourth quarter rate was approximately 92.5%. This result is important because it represents a cost-effective way of training Naval nuclear plant operators. However, there was unplanned shutdown time required at the MARF reactor, combined with the low first quarter performance, precluded the ability to meet the FY 201 1 utilization goal of 90%. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the FY 2010 target of achieving a utilization rate of 90%. The cumulative utilization rate for fiscal year 2010 is 947%. This result is important because it represents a cost-effective way of training Naval nuclear plant operators. 2009 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by achieving a utilization rate of 91%. This result is important because it represents a cost- effective way of training Naval nuclear plant operators. The annual target will remain constant in FY 2010 at achieving a minimum utilization rate of 90% for the operation of test reactor plants. *Does not reflect a Naval Reactors directed hold on prototype operations to improve staff performance and training. 2008 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target by achieving a utilization rate of 92%. This result is important because it represents a cost- effective way of training Naval nuclear plant operators. 200? Met This result is important because it represents a cost-effective way of training Naval nuclear plant operators. The annual target was 90% (FY 2007? result was Documentation: Prototype Annual Activity Schedule and Actual Reporting DOE FY 20} 1 Armani Performance Report 226 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSA Program: Office of the Administrator Website: Performance Goal: Federai Administrative Costs Maintain the Office of the Administrator federal administrative costs as a percentage of total Weapons Activities and Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program costs at less than 6% FY 2011 target: 5.9% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of the NNSA federal administrative costs as a percentage of total Weapons Activities and Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program costs at 5.9% or less. 40 results: This result is important because it demonstrates a prudent use of valuable resources. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of the NNSA federal administrative costs as a percentage of total Weapons Activities and Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program costs at 5.9% or less. 40 results: This result is important because it demonstrates a prudent use of valuable resources. 2009 Exceeded NNSA exceeded the annual target of Year-end result: Documentation: DOE accounting report; Excel spreadsheet with percent calculations DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 22? Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: NNSA Program: Office of the Administrator Website: Performance Goal: Project Management Career Deveiopment Program Certifications Cumulative percent of active NNSA projects. which are managed by a Federal Project Director. certified at the appropriate level through the Project Management Career Development Program FY 2011 target: 85% Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded Exceeded the cumulative target of 85%. 93% of 27 sizable capital asset projects were managed by an appropriately certified Federal Project Director in FY 2011. This result is important because managing projects with a FPD who is certified to the appropriate Level is required by a DOE Order and consistent with prudent project management standards. 2010 Exceeded Exceeded the annual target of 80%. 87% of NNSA's active capital asset projects were managed by an appropriately certified Federal Project Director at the end of the fourth quarter. This result is important because all active NNSA projects managed by a Federal Project Director (FPD) certified to the appropriate Level is required by DOE Order 413.3A. 2009 Exceeded NNSA exceeded the cumulative target of 74%. Actual Year End Results: T5533 of NNSA's active capital asset projects are managed by an appropriately certified Federal Project Director. This result is important because DOE Order 413.3A requires that all active NNSA projects be managed by a Federal Project Director certified to the appropriate level. Documentation: NNSA Federal Project Directors List; Master Spreadsheet P005 (2009 12 31 files DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 228 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: Environmental Management Program: Environmental Management Website: Performance Goal: EM Efficiency Measure Ftemain within the limits of no greater than a 10% negative cost and schedule variance for the overall cost?weighted mean cost and schedule performance indices for the operating projects, the capital projects, and line item projects that are baselined and under configuration control Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met The EM program has met its annual efficiency goal since its inception in FY 2006. At the end of FY 2011 the actual CPI was 0.99 and the SPI was This efficiency measure is being retired as of the end of FY 2011 and will be replaced by another measure that will better reflect the activities of the EM program. 2010 Met The EM program has met its annual efficiency goal since its inception in FY 2006. At the end of FY 2010 the actual CPI was 0.95 and the SPI was 0.95. 2009 Met The EM program has met its annual efficiency goal since its inception in FY 2006. The FY 2009 actual CPI was 0.98 and the SPI was 0.96. 2006 Met After compiling the EM Earned Value Management (EVM) Project information to Date. the current information was calculated: The cost-weighted mean cost performance index 1.02 The cost-weighted mean schedule performance index 0.99 200? Met After compiling the IPABS-IS Earned Value Management Project to Date Data with approved EVM data the current information was calculated: The cost-weighted mean cost performance index - 1.01 The cost-weighted mean schedule performance index - 0.99 Documentation: DOE PAR system DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 229 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: Environmental Management Program: Environmental Management Website: Performance Goal: Enriched Uranium Containers Packaged for Disposition Package for disposition a cumulative total of 7,953 canisters of enriched uranium Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Exceeded 8,00? packages disposed 2010 Exceeded The Department has met its target. 2009 lviet Packaged for disposition a cumulative total of 72629 containers. This is an increase of 81 containers over the FY 2008 actual total. 2008 Met The complex was able to accelerate its schedule and exceed its target for FY 2008. This was due to increased activity at the 200? Met The ID site is on schedule for this metric, however, the Savannah Fiiver Site is behind schedule for FY 2007. This is due to a revised schedule shift that was negotiated with the new contractors for this project. Documentation: Shipping Manifesis and Disposal Records DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 230 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: Environmental Management Program: Environmental Management Website: Performance Goal: High Levei Waste Packaged for Disposition Package for disposition a cumulative total of 3,571 Canisters of High Level Waste Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Not Met Cumulative 3,526 canisters have been packaged. Work will continue throughout FY 2012. 2010 Exceeded The Department packaged for disposition a cumulative total of 3,250 containers of high level waste. This is 4 containers more than the target of 3,255 containers targeted to be completed by the end FY 2010. 2009 Exceeded Packaged for disposition a cumulative total of 3,070 containers of high?level waste. This is an increase of 196 containers over the FY 2008 actual total. The positive variance is due to excellent feeding and pouring operations and the increased facility pouring time for the Defense waste processing facility at the 2008 Met The complex was able to accelerate its schedule and exceed its target for FY 2008. The positive variance is due to excellent feeding and pouring operations and the increased facility pouring time for the Defense Waste Processing Facility at the SR8. 200? Met The Savannah River Site (BBS) completed packaging 160 canisters (86 percent) of high level waste. The processing and packaging of this waste contributes to the reduction in the amount of high-risk radioactive liquid waste in the Department?s inventory. Documentation: Quality Assurance Inspection Records for waste packaging. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 231' Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: Environmental Management Program: Environmental Management Website: Performance Goal: Nuciear Facilities Complete remediation work at a cumulative total oi nuclear facilities Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Achieved target of 94 nuclear facilities. 2010 Not Met The Department has completed work at a cumulative total of 94 nuclear facilities versus a target oi 99 Nuclear Facilities. In the coming year, the EM program will re?evaluate its near?term targets and priorities. Future work on this measure will include activities dedicated to the decontamination and decommissioning of nuclear facilities throughout the complex. 2009 Exceeded Completed a cumulative total of 93 nuclear facilities. This is an increase of 4 facilities over the cumulative total of 89 facilities completed at the end of FY 2008. Documentation: Decommissioning Project Final Report. State and federal regulator acceptance of completion report. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 232 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: Environmental Management Program: Environmental Management Website: Performance Goal: Radioactive Facfiities Complete a cumulative total of 400 radioactive facilities Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Not Met Cumulative 393 radioactive facilities have been completed vice a target of 400. Future work on this measure will include continued activities dedicated to the decontamination and decommissioning of radioactive facilities throughout the EM complex throughout FY 2012. 2010 Met The site has met its target, completing a cumulative total of 389 radioactive facilities. 2009 Exceeded Completed a cumulative total of 363 radioactive facilities. This is an increase of 15 nuclear facilities over the FY 2008 actual. Completing this work demonstrates the ability of the EM program to deliver significant reduction in environmental, safety, and security risks. 2008 Met Decontamination and Decommissioning activities at Idaho, and Oak Ridge contributed to this measure as well as evaluation of work done at the West Valley Demonstration Plant in New York as well as Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, contributed to this measure. Documentation: Decommissioning Project Final Report. State and federal regulator acceptance of completion report. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 233 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: Environmental Management Program: Environmental Management Website: Performance Goal: Reiease Site Remediation Compilations Complete remediation work at a cumulative total of 7,158 release sites Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Not Met A cumulative ?,111 release sites have been completed. Future work on this measure will include continued environmental remediation activities dedicated to completing release sites throughout the EM complex throughout FY 2012. 2010 Not Met The Department completed FY 2010 with a cumulative total of 6,9?9 release sites behind schedule for 4 Remediation Completions from its annual target of 6,983 release sites. This is due to delays at the Oak Ridge site for one remediation completion, which is expected in the coming year. The remaining shortfall is due Idaho National Laboratory 9. This variance will be resolved as the result of renegotiation the regulatory agreement between INL and the state of Idaho. Future work on this measure will include activities aimed at completing remediation work throughout the complex. 2009 Not Met Completed remediation work at a cumulative total of 6,?88 release sites. Negotiations with regulators for the EM sites are ongoing, to insure final approval which is required in order for the site to be counted as complete. 2008 Not Met The Department completed remediation work at a cumulative total of 6,68? release sites, this is a shortfall of 80 release sites from the original FY 2008 target. This is largely due to delays at Richland, Sandia, and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). 200? Met The Department completed FY 2007 ahead of schedule by 78 release sites. This is due to increased cleanup activities at a variety of sites including Idaho, the Nevada Test Site and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory where the Department declared the site to be physically complete in FY 2007?. Documentation: State and federal regulator acceptance of the Remedial Action Report. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 234 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: Environmental Management Program: Environmental Management Website: Performance Goal: TRU Waste Disposition Disposition of a cumulative total of ?8,?28 cubic meters of transuranic waste consisting of 1 18 cubic meters of Remote Handled TRU and 78,812 cubic meters of Contact Handled TRU Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Not Met Cumulative 78,494 cubic meters of transuranic waste have been disposed. The sites across the DOE complex will continue characterizing, packaging, and shipping TRU waste throughout FY 2012. 2010 Exceeded At the end of FY 2010 EM dispositioned a cumulative total of 70,?44 cubic meters of transuranic waste consisting of 116 cubic meters of Remote Handled TRU and T0828 cubic meters of Contact Handled TRU. 2009 Exceeded Disposition of a cumulative total of 63,588 cubic meters of transuranic waste consisting of a cumulative total of 130 cubic meters of Remote Handled TRU and cumulative total of 83,456 cubic meters oi Contact Handled TRU 2008 Not Met Overall, the complex completed FY 2008 behind schedule by 560 cubic meters of TRU waste: consisting of 1 12 cubic meters of Remote Handled TRU and 448 cubic meters of Contact Handled TRU. This negative variance was due to a variety of reasons: poor weather condition that prevented shipments, and several delays at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in FY 2008. During FY 2008, WIPP was shut down for several weeks in order to repair a water main break; also, WIPP also stopped activities for a self-imposed safety pause. 200? Met The Department is ahead of schedule for FY 2007 by 298 cubic meters. This is largely due to accelerated shipments from a variety of sites including Idaho, Richland and the SR8. Documentation: Shipping Manifests. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 235 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: Legacy Management Program: Legacy Management Website: Performance Goal: Maintain the protectiveness of insfaiied environmentai remedies Results: FY Target Commentary 2011 Met All sites were inspected in accord with existing agreements. Failure to conduct the inspections would have had the potential to make the Department liable to penalties and litigation. 2010 Exceeded Inspections completed in accord with regulatory requirements and agreements with regulators 2009 Exceeded Due to the continuing resolution, the target was held at 82 sites. However, circumstances allowed site inspections for additional sites. Supporting documentation is located in Legacy Management's Grand Junction Office. 2008 Met Inspections were conducted at all sites within LM's responsibility {82 sites in FY 2008). Maintenance was performed as needed to maintain site integrity. Protectiyeness of all site remedies was confirmed. 200? Met Inspections were conducted at 70 sites, including 34 sites that are "records only." Documentation: Supporting documentation is maintained in the Grand Junction, CO, office of the Office of Legacy Management DOE FY 20} 1 Armani Performance Report 236 Strategic Goal: 3: Securing our Nation Office: Legacy Management Program: Legacy Management Website: Performance Goal: and Maintenance Cost Fteduce the cost of performing long?term surveillance and monitoring activities by 2% while meeting all regulatory requirements to protect human health and the environment. Reduction is measured in percent from the life-cycle baseline. Goal is 2% reduction below the baseline for that year. Final goal is a 10% reduction by FY 2015. Results: FY Target Commentary 201 1 Met Achieved efficiencies in conduct of long-term and surveillance functions to realize the savings over the target of a 2% reduction. The baseline was $36.9 million and the actual costs were $31.6 million; a reduction of 14.3%. 2010 Exceeded Achieved planned 2% reduction from its baseline for FY 2010. 2009 Data Not The preliminary results indicate the target of 2% cost reduction was exceeded with savings of 3.8% Available 2008 Met Actual cost savings exceeded the 2% target. 2007? Met Actual cost savings were more than 15% -- a much greater savings than the goal of Documentation: Supporting documentation is maintained in the Grand Junction, CO, office. DOE FY 20} 1 Annual Performance Report 237 Document Number 26 Fisca . -- 'irwi-?r LII-.- - .1. uni; "in .v -: US. OF ENERGY Agency Reporting he Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 authorizes federal agencies, with Tconcurrence from the Office of Management and Budget, to consolidate various reports in order to provide performance, financial, and related information in a more meaningful and useful format. The. Department of Energy has chosen an alternative to the consolidated Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2011, instead producing the three reports below. These reports are located on the following website: Agency. Financial Report ?ml Organized by the following three major sections: Agency Financial Report - 1 Management?s Discussion and Analysis provides information on history, mission, organization, strategic goals, analysis of financial. statements, systems, controls and legal compliance, and management priorities. Financial Results provides a message from the Chief Financial Officer, consolidated and combined financial statements, and the auditors' report. Other Accompanying Information provides. the Inspector General?s statement of management challenges, improper payments information, and other statutory reporting. Annual Performance Summary of WW. Annua! Report Sl'j'mmar'f'?rormrm Performance and I I and Flnanclal I I Contains detailed - Fmancml. Information. annual performance results and Contains highlights documentation for from the APR and program goals. that AFR align with the congressional budget request I .m enesor anther Table of Contents Message from the. Secretaryr .. 1 DOE ata Glance ..2 DOE History .. 3 Agency Organizational Structure Major Laboratories and Field Facilities ..5 Financial Resources .. 6 Human Capital Resources .. 7 Financial Management Report Card ..7 Strategic Plan and Program Performance .. 8. Priority Goals .. 16 Analysis of Financial Statements ..17 Management Challenges .. 23 lames Forrestal Building U.S. Department of Energy headquarters in Washington, DC Message from. the. Secretary I am pleased to present the U.S. Department of Energy?s (DOE) Fiscal Year 20l 1 Summary of Performance and Financial Information. This report provides key financial and performance information that demonstrates. our. accotmtability. to ensure America?s. security and prosperity by addressing its. energy, environmental, and nuclear. challenges. through transformative science and technology solutions. This. report. presents highlights. from two. more. detailed reports, Fiscal Year 20l Agency Financial Report. and Fiscal Year 20l Annual Pe {farmanee Report. These reports. are. available at liturgy. w. The Department of Energy has made remarkable progress during these economically challenging times by laying the Foundation for a new clean. energy future, advancing science. and redttcing the nuclear dangers facing our citizens. In the process, we have begun to change the way the Department does business so we accomplish our work more efficiently and more effectively. The Department of Energy Strategic Plan, released in May 201 1, reflects this new focus through four strategic. goal areas; transform. our energy systems through catalyzing the. timely, material, and efficient transformation of the nation?s energy system and securing U.S.. leadership. in clean energy technologies;prainore the science. and. engineering enterprise. by. maintaining a vibrant U.S. effort in science. and engineering as a cornerstone of. our. economic. prospen'ty, with clear leadership. in strategic areas:.secnre our. nation by enhancing nuclear. security through defense, nonproliferation, and environmental. efforts; and achieve managementand operational. excellence by establishing. an operational and adaptable framework that combines the best wisdom of all. Department stakeholders. to maximize mission success. The investtnents DOE has tnade have laid the foundation for a new clean energy economy creating jobs, reducing our dependence on foreign. energy sources, and. saving tnoney for American families and. businesses. Investments in. advanced. vehicle manufacturing, renewable energy. generation, the weatherization of low?income homes, smart meter deployment, and carbon capture and sequestration have benefited communities across the country. at the. same time. that they have increased the nation's economic competitiveness. The Department to expand the frontiers of science to spur innovation. and position the United States to lead in. the global clean energy economy. The Advanced Research Projects Agency?Energy has established itself as a ground?breaking research agency to support potentially transformative research. DOE has also launched three Energy Innovation Hubs and dozens of Energy Frontier Research Centers to accelerate cutting?edge research and development. From a car battery with a SUD-mile range. to producing gasoline. from sunlight, we have unleashed bold new. research efforts that if successful could fundamentally. change the. way we. use. and produce energy. The Department of Energy has strengthened nuclear safety and security at home and abroad. cleaning up nuclear sites in the United States and securing vulnerable nuclear tnaterial around the world. The Department also played a central role in the historic Nuclear Security Summit. which brought together 4? world leaders to agree on effective national and international measures to secure nuclear material. DOE contributed to making the world a safer place by helping negotiate the New START Treaty the most significant arms control agreement in nearly two decades. As we continue ottr work, the Department will rely on the creativity, talent, and dedication of its employees and of the Department?s contractor work force to discover and deliver solutions to our national challenges. Together, we can position the United States to win the global clean energy technology race creating new jobs and industries and a stronger economic future. The. independent. public. accounting firm KPMG LLP conducted an audit of the Department's. fiscal year 201 1 financial statements contained in Fiscal Year 20H Agency Financial Report. . Based on the. results of that audit, the Department received an unqualified audit opinion. Based on our internal evaluations, I. can provide reasonable. assurance. that the. financial and performance. information contained in this report is complete. and reliable. and accurately describes the. results achieved by the. Department. As Secretary, I assure you that Department of Energy employees take their work seriously, and I commend them for their contributions. Steven Chu. Febru ary 2012 U.S. Department of Energy Summary of Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2011 DOE at a Glance Mission To ensure America?s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformatiye science and technology solutions Strategic Goals 1: Transform Our Energy Systems Catalyse the timely, material, and efficient transformation of the nation?s energy system and secure 11.3. leadership in clean energy technologies 2: The Science and Engineering Enterprise Maintain a Vibrant 1.1.3. effort in science and engineering as a cornerstone of our economic prosperity, with clear leadership in strategic areas 3: Secure Our Nation Enhance nuclear security through defense, nonproliferation, and environmental efforts 4: Management and. Operationui Establish an operational and adaptable framework that combines the best wisdom of all Department stakeholders to maximize mission success Organization The Department of Energy (DOE) is comprised of three Of?ces of Under Secretaries (Nuclear Security, Energy, and Science), the Energy Information Administration, the Advanced Research Projects Agency- Energy, the Loans Program Office, 4 Power Marketing Administrations, 13 staff and support offices, 22 operations and area offices, and 24 research laboratories and facilities. Personnel The fiscal year 2011 workforce was comprised of 16,036 on?board federal employees and 100,072 contractor employees. The large number of contractors is attributable to the highly specialised scientific and technical skill mixes required to manage and operate 17 national laboratories. Performance FY 2011 FY 2010 FY. 2009 FY 2003. FY 2007 Targets Met 165 273 285 203 189 Targets Not Met 25 65 62 15 14 Results Unknown 1 6 3 2 0 Total Niml?iJEF (ifs/{ensures i 9} 344 350 220 203 Share Mei 86% 79% 811% 92% 93% Fi nancia Is (dollars. in billions} FY 2011 FY. 2010 FY 2009. FY 2008 FY. 2001'r Total Assets 8 182.0 181.? 182.0 133.8 130.? Total Liabilities 371.4 355.6 361.5 55 344.0 337.8 Net Cost of Operations 5 44.0 23.8 40.1 29.4 61.5 Total Budgetary Resources 63.0 66.7 95.6 36.8 36.1 Net Outlays 34.7 32.0 24.1 21.3 20.1 Audit Opinion unquniified unquali?ed unquuii?ed unquuii?'ed unquuiigfied 11.5. Department of Energy Summary of Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 201 1 DOE History he Department has one ofthe richest and most diverse histories in the. federal government, with its lineage tracing back to. the Manhattan Project and the race to develop the atomic bomb during World War ll. Following that war, Congress. created the Atomic Energy Commission in 1946 to oversee the sprawling nuclear scientific and industrial complex supporting the Manhattan Project and to maintain civilian government control over atomic research and development. During the. early Cold War years, the Commission focused on designing and producing nuclear weapons and developing nuclear reactors for naval propulsion. The creation ofthe. Atomic Energy Commission ended the exclusive government use ofthe. atom and began the growth. of the commercial nuclear power industry, with the Commission having authority to regulate the new industry. In response to changing needs and an extended energy crisis, the Congress passed the Department of Energy Organization Act in 1903?, creating the Department of Energy. That legislation brought together for the first time, not only most ofthe government?s energy programs, but also science. and technology programs and defense responsibilities that included the. design, construction and testing of nuclear weapons. The Department provided the framework for a comprehensive and balanced national energy plan by coordinating and administering the energy functions ofthe federal government. The Department undertook responsibility for. long-term, high-risk research and development of energy technology, federal power marketing. some energy conservation activities, the nuclear weapons programs, some energy regulatory programs and a central energy data collection and analysis program. Transformers Inn ufaclilretl. W'aulteslm Flecl ric Systems will help. to modernize. the eleclrical grid for the st. cenlury Mill used In roll uranium inln rods forsubsequent fabricalion inln fuel elements in Fcrnald?s I'lant Eu [photo lill?l?l?l in 1953M Over its history, the Department has shifted its emphasis and focus as the energy and security needs of the nation have changed, On February 17, 2009, the Department was significantly impacted by. President Obama signing into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Recovery. Act more than doubled the. Department's budget by providing an additional $35.2 billion offunding for the acceleration ofa number. of critical commitments in the Department's mission and activities. US. Department of Energy Summary of Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2011 3 US. Department of Energy Advanced Research Proiecm Agency? Eneroy Luaii Oliice American Recovery ch Act Office OFFICE THE SECRETARY Dr. Steven Ch ii Secretary Daniel B. Punemen Deputy Sewetary also set-A5 es Litrel operating officer Melvin E. Williams Jr. Associate Deputy Secretary reneral Energy Regulatory Commission Inspector General Chief of Staff Ollice ol the Under Secretary lor Nuclear Security lhomas P. Digestion ntler becretary for Nocleor Security Dllice ol the Under Secretary Mr Science Vacant Under Secretary Ullice til the Energy Information Administration Assistant Secretary for Policy Hibernational Altairs 'u'a cant Bonneville Power Administlation soucnwesLem Power Assistant Secretary for Congremional ?2 Inher- mirnmn'iririml Affairs General Counsel National l?JiJnlea Security Adminish?ation Assistant Secreiary- for En Lirenmental Office. rii Mdriegerileril Eouthea stern Power Administration Abeistaiil L-Hcietaiy loi Chiel Financial Ollicer ll trieigy tin-Jein Ex Renewable Energy Deputy Administrator for Deiense Nucledi l'lr'plil?y ilrlmininl?ml?nr for Defense Programs Advance: 'eci'eeiific: Co mputing Resaaitli Legacy Mdriagerilerit Deputy Administrator Deputy Uncler Secretary for Naval Warfare for ?niinter?termrism Associate Arlinlnisl'ial'nr Associate Administrator for Defense Nuclear ?5 for Emergency Security Operaljons associate Administrator for Project Management Assn-Jana l'ur Summary of Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2011 Associate Admin'stratm lor [niormahon MdlicigemeiiL t3; L'liiel' mmEt .lrlioiiriqtion L'liTlLL?l Associate Mminisl'ml'nr for Management R: - I Associate Adminis'o'ahor I'ui barely t'i IlEdlLil Bean: Energy Sciences t-L'esbom ilueo Power Arlminid?ratinn Chief Huran Co pilzil Df?nar AsSIstant L?ecretaiy l'or Foss" Energy l'liinf Information Df?nnr Biological a Err-?rea- Iiieritdl Realises-.11 High Energy - Fusion Energy Science {casielanl Harri-tar}: for Electricity Delivery EL Management Intelligence Fl- Counterinlellicience Energy Reliability Heal?i Safety Ea I?ulzlicAffaiic AsSIstanl Eecretary lor NHL it"dl Liiergy Nuclear Lilly-airs Workforce Deceit-arrith for Teachers 5: Screettels Hearings Er Appeals Economic Impact EL Diversity Indian Fnergy Polini Agency Organizational Structure Major Laboratories and Field Facilities (?Hui '9 JR 1 lr' .- ?33 II. h??H?H-h I. :3 I i Lgend I Doe-ran on: O??ces I Prod chtior 'Clea L.p I Laboratories I eld IZrt?ceg S'te or Project Of?ces Specra P'eroo 'er Srtes or Of? ces . Power Adn? i istratio I Ser'rrce BuSIness Center Alaska 0 Aroc Energy Of?ce California Be'lseley te Of?ce 3 Energy Tecl" nolo g? Eng nee'ir'g Center 0 Lawrence Ber-eley Natrona Laboratory Lawrence Liverm ore National Laboratory errern" ore Srte Ori?ce 0' Sand a National Laboratorres Cr SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory SLAC Srte Of?ce Colorado ID Go den Fre rirr?ce Grand Jancron Or?ce Nat onal Renewable Energy.r Laborator?r' d) Area F?ower Ad "r?rlr?lstratron is Northeast Home Heating Oi Reserves District of Columbia Er It"; Headocarters Georgia South-eastern Power Adm nistration Idaho Idaho hatronal Lao-oratory 0 Idaho Operations Of?ce 5- RadiologrcalEns-ironntenta Sciences Laboratory "lift?0?5 a; Argonne Natlonal -abOraton; Er Cnicago Fem?ri National Accelerator Laboratory Site Of?ce Li New Laboraton' lowa Antes Laboratory Kentucky Pa ucah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Protect Of?ce 31 Strategic Petr-a eurn Reserve - - - E- Hansas Lrty Plant Kansas City Site Of?ce Nevada Nevada Site as Nevada National Secu Site New Jersey: 3 Northeast borne Heating Orl Reserve 5 Plasma Laboratory Princeton Srte Cf?ce G.) Cadsgag Field Of?ce Inhalation Research Institute Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos Srte Of?ce 5 Nat ona Train no Center Fl 0 NNSA Service Cotter Cr Sandia National Labo'atcrries Sanora Srte Of?ce II Waste Isolation Pilot Plant NEW Erookhat-en National ?roolthatren Site Of?ce Knc-Ils Atomic Power La oorato n' Schenectady Naval Reactors Of?ce 5- West'v?alley Demonstration Project Ohio ColamtusEnvironmeotal Management Proiec? ?3 EM Consolioated Business Center I: Portsm out? Gaseous Dif?usion Plant t3 Southwestern Power Aomrnistratio Oregon Bonneville Power aclm'rristraticn ?3 National Energ "echrology Laboratory Albany Pennsijania Bettrs Power Lab-orator)- a National Energy-echr?oICQF Labc ratory Pittst Nat-til Reactors La oorato n' Fielo Of?ce il- Northeas': Hon?e Heaong Oil Reserve South Carolina Savannah Rwer National La borato I'y' Savannah Flwer Operations OF?ca C. Savannah Ftwer Site Or?ce EastTenr?ess-ee Tecnnolooy Park LII Oar; Prdge National Laboratory {at Oak Rid Site O??ce Ori?ce o?Screntr?c and Technical Info rmat on C. r-l 2 Plant V-I 2 Site O??ce 1.9an L: Pantex Plant ard Site Of?ce Natior?al Energy?echnology Lab Sugar ._and Vi: inia 1 omasJef?ersor Nat'onal Accelerator Thomas Jef?erso Srte Of?ce Washington '3 Han?arc: Facr?c Nonnwest National Lab-oratory Paci?c Nortnwest Site Of?ce {3 chlanc?r OperationsOt?ce Clt?ce ofRn-er Protect on West Virginia :5 INational Energy 'echnolo-gy Lab-3 rator?y Mo rganto wn Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 3 Casper US. Department of Energy Summary of Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2011 5 Financial Resources Adjusted Appropriated Amounts [Adjustments include appropriation transfers, reductions. and appropriations temporarily not available] 4? 69.6 as 1 52.5 515 $293 52?. 1 $24_5_ $24.9 in billions In In In I 200? 2003 2009 2010 2011 Fiscal Year Base Appropriations I Recovery Act appropriations Loan Programs [Original billion of appropriations was later reduced by $3.5 billion in transfers and rescissions. Amounts do not include the Western Area and Bonneville Power Administrations? borrowing authorityand credit reform ?nancing accounts] Assets and Liabilities. 400 $3515 $355.6 $3?1Sin billions 2007 zoos 2009 2010 2011 Assets Liabilities FISCAL YEAR US. Department ofEnergy .. . .. .. . .. .. .. Summary. of Performance and Financial. Information Fiscal Year 2011. Human Capital Resources Federal and Contractor Employees 120,000 100,000 95237 91?353 30,000 00,000 40,000 End-of?Year Employment 14,301 15,320 20,000 99,370 100,072 91,294 16,207 16,410 16,036 I I I I I 200? 2008 2009 FISCAL YEAR 2010 2011 Contractor Employees {basedon actual and estimated headcounts) Federal Employees - includes DOE and Federal Energyr Regulatory Commission (FERC) Employees Financial. Management Report Card REQUIREMENT OR INITIATIVE SUPPORTING INDICATORS Government Management Reform Act ?Pinancial Statement Audit Federal Managers? Financial Integrity Act Internal Controls [Section 11] Financial Systems [Section EH OMB Circular A-123, Appendix A a Federal Financial Management Improvement Act Federal Information Security Management Act Improper Payments Information Act, as amended by the Improper Payments Elimination 8: Recovery Act EE Unqualified Audit Opinion No Material Weaknesses [Section Financial Systems generally conform to {Section requirements and. no FISMA significant de?ciencies identified. . . N0 Material Weaknesses Substantially comply with federal financial management system requirements Substantially. comply. with FISMA requirements as. evidenced by annual FISMA reporting data overall Erroneous Payment Rate and not susceptible to significant improper payments. US. Department of Energy Summary of Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2011 7 Strategic Plan and Program Performance he narrative below discusses recent results and outcomes for Department of Energy programs as aligned with the strategic goals presented in the lJiJh? l?lnn that was released in May 2011 and updated in February 2012. .A detailed discussion of results and documentation for each ofthe agency?s fiscal year 201 1 performance goals is presented in Fiscol l?eor Elli Annual Report. .This. report was released with the. agency's. l-?isml ?i'm r. in linege; Hell in February 2012. Goal 1 Transform Our Energy Systems Cotolyze the timely, material, and e??icient transformation of the nation?s energy system and secure US. leadership in clean energy technologies Objectives: 0 Deploy the technologies we have 0 Discover the new solutions we need 1- Lead the national conversation on energy Supporting Offices: Research l-i'rnjerts I-ilerlricily .nni Energy Reliability Energy Ellieiency and Renewable Energy Energy lnl'orninLion l-?nssil Energy indinn Energy Policy and Programs Nuclear Energy l-lmyel' l?v'lnrliering l.n.'ln urrently, more than 80% of total 0.5. primary energy and more than 95% of 0.3. transportation fuel comes from fossil resources; these. percentages are. expected to change little over the next 25 years under. a business-as- usual scenario. While US. energy consumption and carbon-dioxide emissions are also expected to increase significantly in this scenario, global energy consumption will rise more than twice as quickly due to growing population and increasing development in non- Organisation for Economic (Io?operation and. Development countries. Likewise, water is. integral. to many energy technologies, and related water demands could be amplified in the future if climate change alters regional water cycles. lOur energy technology research and development activities should be cognizant of. this. interdependence. Thiscontext frames the challenge before us: .to achieve our long?term energy and environmental goals, we. must change our current energy. paradigm. through concerted effort across public and private sectors. The following are examples of recent outcomes and benefits to. 0.5.. citizens from 00E investments in energy transformation and clean energy. Solar Breakthroughs: Alta Devices single-junction thin- film Gallium Arsenide ('GaAs]. photovoltaic technology. recently achieved a National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NRELJ-confirmed world record 28.2% conversion efficiency. The company utilizes an epitaxial lift-off technique pioneered by. University of California Berkeley?s. Eli. Yablonovitch that allows Alta to produce ?exible layers of Gal-ls with a thickness ofonly one micmn. Eventually, Alta thinks that it will. be able. to build its modules at a cost ofaround $0.50 per watt. President and CEO Chris Norris recently credited the SunShot lnitiative?s aggressive cost targets with helping spur. the spirit of innovation at his own. company: ."The goal. of. achieving the $1 per installed watt target, set by the Department of Energy, has energized our entire company.? Concentrated photovoltaic manufacturer Solar lunction's multi-junction solar cell recently achieved an HEEL-confirmed world record 43.5% conversion efficiency, easily surpassing the previous. record Solar ]unction?s multi-junction cells employ multiple semiconductor. layers in order to. absorb more of sunlight, allowing for increased efficiency. Plants as Fuels: a team of researchers at the BioEnergy Science Center pinpointed the. exact, single gene that controls ethanol production. capacity in a. microorganism found. in. many. types. ofbiomass crops. .This discovery could be the. missing link in developing biomass. crops. that produce higher concentrations ofethanol. . Scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory have developed a computational model for analyzing the metabolic processes in rapeseed plants. particularly. those related to the production of oils in their seeds. This model will help. to optimizethe production ofplant oils that have widespread potential. as renewable resources for fuel. and industrial chemicals. Airborne Wind Technology: The hope of harnessing high altitude wind power has been alive for years, but initial deployments have yet to succeeddue to strict Federal Aviation Authority safety. regulations that apply. to anything ?ying above 2,000 feet. Furthermore, the historical lack of support from government agencies suggests a high level ofrisk for potential investors. The 0.5. Department of Energy Summary of Performance and Financial information Fiscal Year 2011 Advanced Research Project Agency Energy helped high?altitude hopefuls gain ground last year by awarding California-based Makani Power $3 million to advance its airborne wind technology. Makani?s Airborne Wind Turbine aims to capture wind power at altitudes below 2,000 feet where Federal Aviation Administration safety regulations are milder, but at heights high enough to extract energy from more powerful, consistent winds. Clean Energy Projects: DUE fills an important gap providing debt ?nancing for innovative clean energy projects helping to bridge the ?valley?of?death" in the clean energy technology development cycle, between the pilot- facility stage and commercial maturity, where companies find it difficult to obtain the financing needed to deploy their technologies at commercial scale. DOE ?nalized a number of transformative projects in FY 2011. These include Project Liberty, one ofthe nation's first cellulosic ethanol power plants located in lowa. The partial loan guarantee to Project Amp will support the distributed generation ofan estimated 233 megawatts of electricity using photovoltaic solar panels installed on approximately 250 commercial rooftops in 28 states. When completed, the Aqua Caliente Project in Arizona will he the largest Pl! generation facility in the world. DOE has also supported several of the world?s largest concentrating solar power facilities that will triple the nation's currently- installed concentrated solar photovoltaic capacity. Advanced Battery Factory: Johnson Controls in Holland, Michigan a once shuttered factory is helping speed up the advanced battery industry in the United States. This long dormant plant was revived by a $300 million grant through DOE which allowed johnson Controls to secure the private investments it needed to select the Holland facility over several overseas locations. Similar 00E investments have helped position the United States to lead the charge in advanced battery production, practically building the industry from the ground up in less than two years. Smart Grid Deployment: CenterPoint Energy is one of the nation?s leaders in smart grid technologies. With the help of$200 million from DOE, the company is building a smarter, more reliable, electrical system for Houston's residents. The project is deploying a total of 2.2 million smart meters, more than 500 grid monitoring sensors, automation at 30 different substations, and a range of energy use tools to help families save money on their energy bills every month. New Research Center Established: The Energy Innovation Hub for Nuclear Energy, administered by the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors is expected to help accelerate the advancement ofnuclear reactor technology. CASL researchers are using supercomputers to study the performance of light water reactors and to develop highly sophisticated modeling that will help accelerate upgrades at existing US. nuclear plants. This work will enable better understanding of reactor performance so that designers and operators can achieve maximum efficiency while providing continued improvements in reliability and safety. The facility. headquartered at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, brings together four national labs, three industry partners and three universities in a highly collaborative effort to develop tools that will advance new generations ofnuclear reactors and safely extend the life and reliability of existing plants. National Carbon Capture Center Launches Post- Combustion Test Center: The recent successful commissioning ofan Alabama-based test facility is another step forward in research that will speed deployment of innovative post-combustion carbon dioxide capture technologies for coal-based power plants. Technologies tested at the Post?Combustion Carbon Capture Center are an important component of carbon capture and storage, whose commercial deployment is considered by many experts as essential for helping to reduce human- generated carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to potential climate change. ChaHenges Improving Electricity. Delivery: Reliable. efficient, affordable, and secure delivery of electric power requires innovative solutions, including large grid-scale energy storage and grid integration ofelectric vehicles and intermittent power sources such as wind and solar. increasing Clean Transportation: Enabling widespread utilization vehicles requires advanced batteries with substantially higher energy and power densities, lower costs, and faster recharge times. Extracting Natural Gas Cleaniy and Safely: Natural gas will continue to play an important role in the nation's energy portfolio, helping create jobs, stimulate the economy, and provide an alternative to imported oil. However, this is built on the ability to work with industry to improve the environmental performance of the processes. What can be done now to increase safe and responsible production of natural gas is directly connected to the long-term ability to develop this fuel source. modeling and simulation capabilities for predicting simulation of light water reactors US. Department of Energy Summary of Performance and Financial information Fiscal Year 2011 9 Goal 2 The Science and Engineering Enterprise Main toin vibrant US. effort in science and engineering as cornerstone ofour economic prosperity, with cieor ieoo?ership in strategic oreos Objectives: - Extend our. knowledge of the natural world. 0 Deliver new technologies to advance our mission - Sustain a world-leading technical workforce Supporting Offices: Sc it- 1 he Department of Energy supports basic research into .the smallest constituents of matter; the most ?eeting subatomic, atomic, and chemical transitions; and the structure and properties ofmaterials and biological systems. . We. are the largest federal funder sciences. Our research extends our understanding of nature; enables new. technologies that support the Department's energy, environment, and security missions; and improves the quality oflife of all Americans. Scienti?c discovery feeds technology development; and, conversely, technology advances enable scientists to pursue an ever more challenging set ofquestions. The Department strives. to maintain leadership in fields where this feedback is particularly strong, including materials science research, bio-energy research, and high-performance computing. The following are examples of recent outcomes and benefits to U.S. citizens from DOE investments in science and engineering. Trapping the Light Fantastic: A new solar cell design uses advanced optics and nanotechnology to maximize performance and minimize cost. One of the more promising new applications ofnano-optics to solar energy is the work of Harry Atwater and his team at the California Institute ofTechnology. Starting with a focus on harvesting and trapping light, Atwater's group has developed an entirely new design for. a thin??lm silicon solar cell, which promises to achieve efficiencies rivaling today?s top?of?the?line commercial silicon cells, at potentially a fraction of the cost. Ifsuccessful, the technology could help take us a step closer to "grid parity," the Iong-sought-after point at which solar photovoltaics become inexpensive enough to be genuinely cost- competitive with fossil fuel?generated electricity. In the space ofa year, atwater's unusually promising design has gone from the lab bench to the early stages of commercialization, aided by a $1 million incubator grant from DOE and a newly raised round ofventure capital. General Electric Co. Uses DOE Advanced Light Sources to Develop Revolutionary Battery Technology: The company is constructing a new battery factory in upstate New York that is expected to create over 300 jobs. The new batteries, based on sodium metal halide technology, boast three times the energy density and charging power of the lead- acid batteries they are designed to replace. GE engineers also. say the batteries have long cycle life, withstanding thousands upon thousands ofcharge and discharge cycles, for expected lifetimes of up to 20 years, and can operate in a wide range oftemperatu re environments. To help achieve these breakthroughs, GE researchers relied on two of the. nation's most advanced and sophisticated scientific user facilities, the National Light Source at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Advanced Phottm Source at DOE's Argonne National Laboratory outside Chicago. Superfast Search Engine Speeds Past the Competition: Computer scientists at the DUE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory developed a. new approach to searching massive databases. Embodied in open-source software called FastBit, the new method can search massive databases 10 to 100 times faster than large commercial database software, depending on the specific application. Originally developed to sort through the massive data produced by nuclear physics experiments, the software. has found important commercial uses. A German-based pharmaceutical firm has used the software to accelerate drug discovery. Still other companies have used it to analyze computer network performance or rapidly comb through masses offinancial data. Fundamental Studies in Catalysis Enable Use of "Lean-Burn" Engines for Vehicles: In recent years, DOE research has focused on solving the. vexing issues that have been preventing the fuel efficient lean-burn engine from becoming a commercial reality for today's vehicles. Lean? burn engines operate at very high air-to-fuei ratios and, in this way, can improve fuel efficiency by more than 25% over standard gasoline engines. Unfortunately, these higher ratios mean that emission control devices developed for standard gasoline engines are not effective for removing nitrogen oxides. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's catalysis research program, sponsored by Office of Science, performed research that led to a better understanding ofhow the catalyst functions and enabled improvements in catalytic converter performance. 100 Awards: DOE researchers have won 36 of the 100 awards given out for 2011 by Magazine for the most outstanding technology developments with promising commercial potential. The coveted awards are presented annually in recognition ofexceptional new products, processes, materials or software developed throughout the world and introduced into. the. market the previous year. 1.1.5. Department of Energy Summary ofi?erformance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2011 10 ChaHenges Global Competitiveness: America today faces not only fierce international economic competition, but competition across a wide spectrum ofactivities. including growing competition in science and in scientific facilities. Meeting the. challenge. may require new technologies. for producing, storing, and using energy with performance levels far Goal 3 Secure Our Nation beyond what is now possible. Such technologies spring from scientific breakthroughs. Developing a Technical Workforce: There is a growing need in the. private and public sectors, for scientists. and engineers, including researchers. Providing technical and scientific training is vital to ensure that America remains competitive and prosperous. Enhance nuclear security through defense, nonproliferation, and environmental e??orts Objectives: 0 Support the nuclear stockpile and future military needs 0 Reduce global nuclear dangers I. Apply our capabilities for other critical national security missions in. Support responsible civilian nuclear power development and fuel cycle management 0. Complete environmental remediation ofour legacy and active sites Supporting Offices: Pi-lunugeineiil :iricl Nntiiuml Nuclear Security he Department of Energy?primarily through the National Nuclear Security Administration?is central to preventing proliferation and nuclear terrorism and sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal. We have added responsibility for cleaning up the environmental legacy of the Cold War?s nuclear weapons complex. Through engagement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. and directly with other international and interagency partners, the Department has. a leading role in nonproliferation and cooperative threat-reduction programs. This expertise positions the Department ideally to help shape policy surrounding future deployment ofnuclear power globally. Iust as the Department is the trusted authority on the safety, security, and effectiveness of the US. nuclear weapons stockpile, it can apply science, technology, and engineering to ensure future nuclear power systems can be deployed safely and securely with appropriate mitigation of risks from terrorism and proliferation. The Department has the monumental task ofcleaning up the environmental legacy from five decades ofnuclear weapons. development and government?sponsored nuclear energy research. We have been successfully mitigating the technically challenging risks and have made substantial progress in nearly every area of nuclear waste cleanup, including stabilizing and consolidating special nuclear material and safely storing tons ofused nuclear. fuel. . We have continued to build momentum in disposing ofsolid radioactive wastes, remediating contaminated soil and water, and deactivating and decommissioning radioactively contaminated facilities, with each succeeding year building on the last. Our Intelligence. and Counterintelligence program provides the Secretary, his staff, and other policymakers within the Department timely, technical intelligence analyses on all aSpects of foreign nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, and energy issues worldwide. The following are examples of recent outcomes and benefits to US. citizens from DOE investments in securing our nation. Ratification and Implementation of New START: The DOEfNational Nuclear Security Administration played an essential role in enabling 0.3. Senate consideration ofthe New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty which President Obama submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent on May 13, 2010. This included testimony in support of the. Treaty by. Secretary Chu and NNSA Administrator D?Agostino, responses to numerous questions for the record associated with future plans to maintain the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, and the development of material to further enable long- term planning and support for the stockpile stewardship program and required infrastructure. The Senate provided its advice and consent on December. 22, 2010,. and New. START entered into force on February 5,2011. continues to play an important role in Treaty implementation, including in the Treaty's Bilateral Consultative Commission, and utilizes expertise across the Nuclear Security Enterprise for work such as. assessing Russian radiation detection equipment for use during inspections in the United States. US. Department of Energy Summary of Performance and Financial information Fiscal Year 2011 11 United States-Russia Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: In ]anuary 2011, the United States and Russia brought into force a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement [Section 123 Agreement} that establishes the legal basis for US. and Russian industry to engage in. significant nuclear commerce. The agreement establishes a solid foundation for long-termcivil nuclearcooperation, provides commercial opportunities for US. industry, and enhances U.S.?Russian cooperation on important nuclear nonproliferation goals. Pursuant to its statutory authority, DOE provided technical support in the negotiation of the agreement and will have the lead role in its, implementation. Rules on Sensitive Exports Strengthened: DOE recently helped secure international agreement on a landmark change to the nuclear supply regime. After seven years of negotiations, the 46-member Nuclear Suppliers Group [NSG].agreed to new guidelines that impose. speci?c criteria for access to the most sensitive and dangerous elements of. the nuclear fuel cycle, enrichment and reprocessing For over 30 years, the NSG?the world?s most important nuclear trade rule?making body? has urged holders of sensitive nuclear technology to "exercise restraint? in decisions about exports, but until now, has imposed few specific, conditions on this trade. In 2003, however, it was confirmed that All. Khan's international smuggling ring had proliferated uranium enrichment technology to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and perhaps elsewhere; and the NSC initiated an effort to strengthen its ENR guidelines. Global Threat Reduction Initiative IGTRII: In support of President Obama?s goal to. secure all vulnerable material in 4 years, 3,125 kilograms [including shipments from Poland, Belarus, Serbia, Ukraine, Canada, Italy, and Belgium} were removed in FY 2011. In addition, GTRI has shut down or veri?ed as shutdown 76 reactors, supported the shipment to the United States ofthe first low enriched. uranium- based hie?99 produced in South Africa accelerated four U.S. domestic. projects to produce the medical isotope hie-99 without the use ofhighly enriched uranium, and secured a total of 1,081 buildings with high?activity radiological materials. Zheleznogorsk Plutonium Production Elimination Project: In July, 2011, this project fulfilled its commitments under the 2003 Plutonium Production Reactors Agreement by providing assistance to supply heat to the city, after the shutdown ofthe last plutonium production reactor. In August 2011, the US. government met its commitment to provide capability for replacement heat and electricity to the city onheleznogorsk with the completion ofa new heating plant. Six donor countries provided financial assistance. Capability for replacement heat and electricity was required because ofthe?ipril 2010 shutdown of the last Russian weapons-grade plutonium production reactor. Radiation Detection Systems: The Second Line of Defense program achieved a major milestone by completing deployments of radiation detection systems at all 380 Federal Customs Service of Russia crossing points [airports, seaports, and land crossings]. This achievement was completed as a cost-shared cooperative effort with Russian partners and will help prevent, detect and interdict the illicit movement of nuclear or radioactive material. Each side contributed resources to approximately half the Customs sites. All sites in. the North West Customs Directorate [approximately 60 crossings] were integrated electronically to local, regional and Moscow-based oversight and technical support organizations. The SLD program also completed work in the Republic ofGeorgia. Approximately 1? ports, airports, and border crossings were equipped with radiation detection systems and have been networked to provide oversight and technical support. In addition, mobile detection systems have been provided to Border Police and other organisations. Weapons Dismantled: The.Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition program successfully executed the actions to completely dismantle the I353 ahead of the current schedule. The 1353 is a 1960?s era weapon weighing in at approximately 10,000 pounds, making it the largest and heaviest weapon in the stockpile. The BS3 Dismantlement Team?s commitment, strategic focus, and ability to accelerate the salvage ofnationalasset parts proved beneficial to non-proliferation and counter-terrorism efforts. First Integrated Ignition Experiments: The National Ignition Facility recently completed its ?rst integrated ignition experiment - using a 192-beam laser system to fire one megajoule oflaser energy into its first cryogenically layered capsule raising the drive energy by a factor of 30 over previously conducted experiments. The successful completion of the test means NIF, the world?s largest and highest-energy laser system, will move forward with the next phase of its campaign to culminate in fusion ignition tests. Built as a part of the NNSA program to ensure the safety, security and effectiveness of the nuclearweapons stockpile without underground testing, NIF's laser system is expected to be the first to demonstrate reliable fusion ignition the same force that powers the sun and the stars in a. laboratory environment. Uranium Disposition: NNSA achieved the goal of eliminating a cumulative 13 7.1 metric tons ofU.S. surplus highly enriched uranium [enough for more than 2,600 nuclear weapons] by downblending it to low enriched uranium for peaceful use as fuel in power and research reactors. Plutonium Disposition: The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility enabled the. United States to meet its commitments in the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement the 2010 Protocol that amended the PMDA, and the 2006 Liability Protocol, which all entered into force on luly 13, 2011, by exchanging diplomatic notes between the United States and Russia. Construction of the fuel fabrication facility is approximately 62% complete U.S. Department of Energy Summary ofPerformance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2011 12 with. more than 95,000 cubic yards of reinforced concrete and more than 16,000 tons ofrebar installed, as well as 11 of 16 auxiliary buildings complete. Environmental Cleanup. Milestones: By the end of September 20'] 1., the DOE Environmental Management program completed the majority of projects in its $6 billion environmental cleanup portfolio under the Recovery Act. A few. examples follow: Final Honford O?fsite Waste Shipment Leaves idoho Treatment Facility! - The Advanced Mixed Waste. Treatment Project recently completed the last of 25 shipments of waste bound for permanent disposal in New Mexico and Nevada, six months. ahead ofa regulatory. deadline. It took shipments to bring the 923 85?gallon drums of waste from the Hanford Site in Washington to the treatment facility. After characterization and compaction operations, the waste left the treatment facility in 25 shipments to permanent disposal locations. The transuranic waste was shipped to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, and two, 100-gallon drums ofmixed low?level waste were shipped to the Nevada National Security Site. Paducah, Kentucky Crews for DOE cleanup contractor finished work in the Metals Plant at the Paducah Site in early August ofthis year. The two-year cleanup project means another inactive Cold. complex is ready for demolition. Richiond. Washington Workers have reduced the Hanford Site by approximately 50% or 290 square miles; cleared away dozens of facilities and waste sites; removed legacy waste. and. fuels. from. onsite inventory and underground storage; prepared complex facilities for demolition ahead of schedule: and constructed a network of wells, pipelines and treatment systems to expand and enhance groundwater treatment capabilities by millions of gallons per day. Cha?enges Nuclear Deterrence: The challenge is to build on the national consensus demonstrated with the bipartisan ratification ofthe New START and carry the momentum forward by continuing investments in key nuclear security capabilities. . This will. enable the nation to resolve current technical challenges and give this and future administrations the confidence needed to further reduce our number ofnuclear weapons. while providing the flexibility to respond appropriately in an unpredictable global environment. Russian Program: The primary challenge now that the PMDA has entered into force is to conclude the implementing arrangements and milestone plan for the allocation ofthe. $400 million pledge in 0.3. assistance. The balance ofthe approximately $2.5 billion cost will be provided by the Russian Federation. Nuclear Material Storage: The administration continues to believe that nuclear energy has an important role to play as America moves to a clean energy. future. As. part ofthe commitment to restarting the American nuclear industry and creating thousands of new jobs and export opportunities in the process, the government is committed to finding a sustainable approach to assuring safe, secure long-term disposal of used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future was formed by. the Secretary of Energy at the request of the President to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end ofthe nuclear fuel cycle and recommend a new plan. in luly 2011, the Commission issued a draft of its recommendations. A view ofa cry-'ogenically cooled I'iilii target as "seen" by the laser through the hohlrauin's laser entrance hole [photo courtesy of US. Department of Energy Summary of Performance and Financial information Fiscal Year 2011 13 Goal 4 Management and Operational Excellence Establish an operational and odoptobiefromework that combines the best wisdom ofoii Department stakeholders to maximize mission success Objectives: I Achieve operational and technical excellence - Implement a performance-based culture Supporting Of?ces: t'jliicl' financial I'II'I'ii'er (illicl'llnnian Capital (illicl'liilurnitiliun and Impact fieneriil minim-l Health, Safety. and Security Hearings and lnspet'ioi' [lenei'al l-Jnliry and International lilii? he Secretary has challenged all who serve within the Department of Energy to achieve and sustain a commitment to Management and Operational Excellence in support ofthe mission - from headquarters, to every site of?ce and service center, and every laboratory and production facility. The following are other examples of management initiatives and the progress made during ?scal year 2011: Horizontal Integration: To help realize this goal, Secretary Chu established the Associate Deputy Secretary position in February 2011. In support of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary, the Associate Deputy Secretary drives improvements in mission execution and assures that they are ef?ciently and effectively implemented throughout the Department. A key focus in fiscal year 2011 was to improve horizontal integration across the Department. To that end, we now have six key decision-making bodies that are meeting routinely, discussing issues, and making decisions from an enterprise-wide perspective. Project and Contract Management: We are measurably starting to improve our performance in project and contract management. The Office of Science, for example, exceeded the target for completing more than 90% of capital asset projects at the original scope and within 1 10% of the cost baseline. In ?scal year 201 1, they achieved a 100% success rate a Department first. Employee Hiring Time: Efforts have been underway to reduce average time-to-hire for General Schedule and equivalent positions [from initiation date to entry on duty date] from a 1?4 to 80-day average while continuing to attract quality hires, and to ensure the right skill sets are onboard. time-to-hire was ranked number two, most improved agency, by the Federal Times [August 2, 2011]. In fiscal year 2011, the average was reduced to 100 days. In addition, recent progress has been made to develop a tracking and reporting system to provide more meaningful data for hiring managers. Streamlined Requirements: While ensuring continued safe and secure mission performance, the Department's Office of Health, Safety and Security reviewed its complete set of requirements and reduced those that were duplicative or con?icting, placed authorities at the appropriate level, invoked external standards where possible, and streamlined process requirements and decision-making. Continual Learning Program: In ?scal year 2011, we initiated enhancements to our Continual Learning Program to ensure that we develop the most highly-qualified, capable, and flexible federal workforce, moving us towards a more performance?based culture. Key among them was implementation ofa "managers training managers" professional development training module which is clearly C(immunicating performance expectations among our managers. This training employs a case study approach, is interactive, and will be provided to our senior leaders throughout fiscal year 2012. Iilther enhancements are being rolled out in the coming year. Diversity and Inclusion: [n Iuly 2011, we concluded a comprehensive review of workforce diversity and inclusion policies and programs. The findings from this analysis, which have been shared with DDE senior management, indicate that we can do more to create a culture that values diversity, which in turn will make the Department an employer of choice and enhance our mission effectiveness. The Secretary has asked each DUE senior leader, manager, and employee to join him in taking immediate and sustained action to better promote our Department as a positive model ofequal opportunity, diversity, and inclusion. Website Reform: In fiscal year 201 1, DOE reduced, consolidated, and moved websites to the Energygov platform to achieve cost savings. A new web platform was launched that includes 16 consolidated sites in an open source content management system and cloud hosting environment. 1.1.5. Department of Energy Summary ofPerformance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2011 14 Fleet Reduction: This past year, we successfully reduced the headquarters fleet by 35% and replaced more than 1'50 vehicles DUE-wide with hybrid vehicles. Strategic Sourcing: By expanding the use of bulk purchasing and other methods, significant costs were saved or avoided this past year within the program offices. These initiatives will continue in fiscal year 2012. Disposition of Excess Real Property: A cumulative 4.6 million gross square feet of excess real property was eliminated in fiscal year 20 1 1, lowering the Department?s overall stewardship costs. HOUR Eilancmc 1 Support Service Contracts: DOE is aiming to reduce reliance on support service contracts while also ensuring that our federal workforce retains core competencies, talent, and marketability. In fiscal year 2011, we achieved a reduction, with further work planned in ?scal year 2012. Financial Transparency: A quarterly reporting capability was developed for timely and reliable functional institutional cost information from our national laboratories to improve transparency, trust. and effectiveness towards mission performance. A dashboard prototype is in the development stages. T105 and the city joined together to install the first public electric vehicle charging station in the Street neighborhood US. Department of Energy Summary of Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2011 15 Priority Goals The Department of Energy established seven priority goals in FY 2010 which are intended to focus senior leadership?s attention on top administration and departmental priorities and promote better coordination across agencies on key performance priorities. These goals are measurable commitments to specific results the federal government will deliver for the American people. Goal Fiscal Year 2011-12. Progress Retrofits DOE and HUD will work together to enable the cost-effective energy retrofits of a total of 1.1 million housing units by the end of FY 2013 (of this number, DOE programs will contribute to retrofits of an estimated 1 million housing units) DOE completed energy efficiency retrofits on 269,420 homes, resulting in an estimated annual energy savings of per home retrofitted. Legacy Waste Reduce the Department?s Cold War legacy environmental footprint by 40% by 201 1 Mel Completed goal of 40% footprint reduction 5 months early and under budgetreduced approximately 900 square mile legacy footprint to 313 square. miles, or. approximately 66%. of the total footprint. Renewable Capacity. Double. renewable energy generation (excluding conventional hydropower and biopower) by 2012 U.S. renewable energy. generation is expected to. double. from 21 terawatt-hours of. generation from solar, wind. and geothermal in 2008 to. 145 terawatt-hours. of generation by. 2012. Section 1205. Loan Guarantee. Program came. to a close. on Sept. 30, 201 1, after the. successful deployment of over $10 billion to 28 transactions. Battery l?ilanul'acturing Assist in the development and deployment of advanced battery manufacturing capacity to support 500,000 plug?in hybrid electric vehicles per year by 2015 DOE has verified initial battery production at A 23Systems (Livonia, Ml), Johnson Controls (Holland, Ml), EnerDel (Indianapolis, and Saft Industrial Battery Group (Jacksonville, FL). Each of these companies is on track to meet its respective production capacity target. Nuclear Loans Commit (conditionally) to loan guarantees for two nuclear power facilities to add new low?carbon emission capacity of at least 3,800 megawatts during 20l0 Not met Some elements of loan guarantees remain outside of control, including market forces. quality of applications, and rate at which applicants proceed with their required activities. Secure Nuclear Materials Make significant progress toward securing the most vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide within 4 years DOEINNSA has made significant progress by removing a cumulative total of 3,125 kilograms of nuclear materials from at least two dozen countries enough highly enriched uranium to make more than 120 nuclear weapons. A total of 222 kilograms of nuclear material was removed during FY 201 enough for more than 10 nuclear weapons Nuclear lill'caplons Maintain the US. nuclear weapons stockpile and dismantle excess nuclear weapons to meet national nuclear security requirements as assigned by the President through the Nuclear Posture Review Secretaries of Energy and Defense completed joint ?Annual Weapon Stockpile Assessment? for the President; assuring that 100% of warheads in the stockpile are safe, secure, reliable, and available for deployment. DOEINNSA has delivered sufficient life extended W76 warheads to meet the Navy?s. deployment schedule in FY 2010 and FY. 2011 and remains on track to meet future deliveries. .S. Department of Energy Summary of Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 20] 16 Analysis. of Financial Statements he Department's financial statements are included in the Financial Results section of DOE's l-iw-r lien is i i .- in." Preparing these statements is part ofthe Department's goal to improve ?nancial management and provide accurate and reliable information. that is useful for. assessing performance and allocating resources. The Department's management is responsible for the integrity and objectivity of the financial information presented in these financial statements. The financial statements have been prepared to report the ?nancial position and results ofoperations ofthe entity, pursuant to the requirements of 31 United States Code 3515[h}. The statements. have been prepared from the. Department's books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles prescribed by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board and the formats prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget. The financial statements are prepared in addition to the ?nancial reports used to monitor and control budgetary resources which are prepared from the same books and records. The statements should be read with the realization that they are for a component ofthe US. Government. a sovereign entity. Balance Sheet As shown in Chart 1, the Department's total liabilities exceed assets. Significant balance. changes are. detailed in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 4- provides a detailed trend analysis ofthe changes in the Department's environmental liability balances over the past 5 years. The largest component of the Department's environmental liability is managed by the Environmental Management program which addresses the legacy of contamination from the nuclear weapons C(implex and includes managing thousands of contaminated facilities formerly used in the nuclear weapons program. overseeing the safe management of large quantities of radioactive waste and nuclear materials, and cleanup oflarge volumes of contaminated soil and water. The active facilities liability includes anticipated remediation costs for active and surplus facilities managed by the Department's ongoing program operations and which will ultimately require stabilization, deactivation, and decommissioning. Other legacy liabilities are divided between the Environmental Management program for active sites [including estimated cleanup] and the Office of Legacy. Management for post-closure responsibilities. [including surveillance and monitoring activities; soil Chart 1: Total Assets and Liabilities with Breakdown of FY 2011 Liabilities 40D 5361.5. 350 $331.3 5344-? 2009 Fiscal Year 200? 2008 - Assets - Lia ilities $132.0 $131.7. $133.8 $355.6 2010 Liabilities not covered by Budgetary Resources Liabilities covered by Budgetary Resources Unfunded Environmental Liabilities Pension and Other Actuarial Liabilities Nuclear Waste Fund Deferred Revenues All?ther Unfunded Liabilities US. Department of Energy Summary of Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2011 and groundwater remediation; and disposition ofexcess liabilities also includes the Department?s share ofthe material for sites after the Environmental Management estimated future costs ofdispositioning its inventory of program activities have been completed]. The other legacyr high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel. Chart 2: FY 2011 Significant Changes in Assets - Fund Balance with TreaSung 10 Net decrease primarilv resulted. from expenditure. of. ARRA funds ($10.6 billion} partiallv offset. by billion increase infunds retained a from sale of oil stockpile reserves. 6 - Investments Increase clue primarily.r from additional Nuclear Waste Fund receipts 4 from fees collected from owners and generators ofspent nuclearfuel and high-level wastes in excess of. amounts needed to pat.r current F. 2 program costs. 51.9. Loans and Loan Guarantees 2 $1 0 Increase primarili,r due to $4 billion of disbursements on 17 loans partiallvoffset bv billion decrease in present value ofloans. .4 Strategic Petroleum and Home Heating Oil Reserve _5 Net decrease due to sale of 32 million barrels of stockpile reserves. -3 Regulatoni Assets Increase resulted primarilv from BPA's residential exchange benefits -10 agreement [see offsetting increase in other liabilities]. Chart 3: FY 2011 Significant Changes in Liabilities Debt Increase resulted primarily:' from borrowing from the Federal Financing 1? Bank to fund disbursments to loan recipients. .Environmental Cleanup 3 Net increase rewitedfromunfunded. liability. estimateincrease [see 6 chart offset bv. F?r? 2?11 cleanup expenditures. of. $9.8 billion. .Pni hrA riILi a $43 Contractor pension plan liabilities increased by billion and other 2 53 2 contractor post-retirement benefit plan liabilities decreased. bv 50.3 5n 50;; billion. The most significant component of the pension plan. increase resulted from a decrease in the rates used to discount the liabilitiesto [1 present value {See chart 5 -2 Contingencies and Commitments -4 Increase is attributable to changes in spent-nuclearfuel litigation liabiliti.r estimates (see Chart offset by 5.8 billion of pavme '6 related to settlements a nd final judgments. '3 I other Liabilities 40 Increase resulted primarily from BPA's residential exchange benefits agreement. [see offseting increase. in. regula torv. assets}. US. Department ofEnergy Summary of Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2011 18 Chart 4: Composition of Environmental Cleanup and Disposal Liability 200 $186 $134 $130 130 5165 $153 160 140 120 I FT 200? Fr zoos Fm - Fr zoos 30 FY 2010 FY 2011 Environmental Management Other Legacy Environment Active and Surplus Facilities Net Cost of Operations The major elements of net cost [see Chart include. unfunded liability estimates. Since these estimates program costs, unfunded liability estimate changes and primarily relate to past years of operations, they are not earned revenues. The Statement of Net Cost also provides included as current year program costs, hut rather program cost information along the Department?s three reported as "Costs Not Assigned? on the Consolidated Programmatic Strategic Goals [see Chart Statements of Net Cost. Components of the FY 201 1 unfunded liability estimate changes are shown in Chart The Department?s overall net costs are dramatically impacted by changes in environmental and other Chart 5: Major Elements of Net Cost Chart 6: FY 2011 Program Costs [Gross] Breakdown by Programmatic Strategic Goal*. 50 I Unfunded Liabilityr Estimate Changes I Program Costs for 5 40 Strategic Goals? 383 Earned Revenues $31.9 30 $15.1r $25.5 525-? 5 $23. 411% 20 s1ss ?96 sew" Transform 133 Our Hatlon Our Energy $11.5 515'?? systems in 53.6 510 $11.35 0 $i2 ?10 2001 1003 2009 2010 1011 Fiscal Year Program Costs for strategic goals exclude certain costs not directly attributable to the strategic goals, such as the cost of reimbursable and other miscellaneous programs. costs applied to the reduction oflegacy environmental liabilities and imputed costs for the occupational illness program. These excluded costs are more fully described in Notes 22-24 ofthe financial statements. US. Department ofEnergy Summary of Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2011 19 A net increase to the Department's environmental liability estimates during FY 2011 resulted from in?ation adjustments to re?ect constant dollars for the current year; improved and updated estimates for the same scope ofwork, including changes resulting from deferral or acceleration ofwork; revisions in technical approach or scope; and regulatory changes {see Chart 4). The Department?s FY 2011 unfunded liability estimates increased by billion for contractor pension plans and decreased by $0.8 billion for contractor postretirement benefits other than pensions plans. The major components of these estimate changes are shown in Chart 8. The most signi?cant component of the change resulted from a decrease in the rates used to discount the liabilities to present 1iralue. These discount rates are based on the yields of high?quality fixed income securities as of September 30,2011 and 2010. Plan liabilities also changed due to differences in actual plan experience for the year compared to the actuarial assumptions for rates of retirement, termination of employment, compensation increases, health care inflation, and other demographic factors, including changes made to those assumptions to better reflect anticipated future experience. The unfunded pension liability was further increased by less than expected investment return on pension assets for the year. Researchers at PNNI. arousing a Roman. merchant ship that sank in the Adriatic Sea, roughly years ago. to study how to safely store radioactive waste for millennin into the future through i-iti'ii'icatioii technology. Chart 7: FY 2011 Unfunded Liability Estimate Changes 12 $10.2 10 Spent Nuclear Fuel 3 Contingency 5 . . . . Emnronmental Liability 5 Estimates 3 54.5 4 Contractor Pension and PRB Estimate (see chart 8) 1.9 2 Other 0 US. Department ofEnergy Summary of Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2011 20 Chart 8: Contractor Employee Pension and PRB Liability Estimate Changes I Pension Plans Stos 1 ?3 n3? C: in Sin-H Sll-Gl -I.-..- DiscountRate Investment Demographic Changesto Change Returns Less and Plan Benefits Than Assumption Assumptions Changes Budgetary Resources The Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources provide information on the budgetary resources available to the Department for the year and the status ofthosc resources at the end of the ?scal year. The Department receives most ofits funding from general government funds administered by the Department of the Treasury and appropriated, for DUE's use by Congress. Since budgetary accounting rules and financial accounting rules recognize certain transactions at different points intime, Appropriations Used on the Consolidated Statements of I Postretirement Benefit Plans $1.8 Sosa 541-3] Additional Contributions Interest Expected Total 0 ene?ts lCost etur on Accrued Assets Changes in Net Position will not match costs for that period. The primary difference results from recognition of costs related to changes in unfunded liability estimates. Budget authority from appropriations has increased by $2.9 billion from FY 2010. As shown in Chart 9 for FY 2011, the. Department?s Obligations Incurred decreased by $4.4 billion frenm FY 2010. This was primarily due to there being no new Recovery Act funding in FY 2011, resulting in a decrease of billion offset by a $10.9 billion increase in the Non Budget Credit Reform Financing Account. Chart 9: Obligations Incurred 30 so 59.1 50 E40 $32.1 $33.2 $30 [in 20 10' 0 200? 2008 2009 Fiscal Yea - Non Budget Credit Reform Financing 5533 Account $43 9 511-2 - ReimbursableWork General, Special and Revolving Funds 2010 2011 US. Department of Energy Summary of Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2011 I21 Chart 1 0: Recovery Act Appropriations, Obligations and Outlays [cumulative amounts through F?r? 2G11 below exclude the Western l?trea and Bonneville Power Administrations borrowing authority and credit reform ?nancing accounts} '13 515'? 51? Recoveryr Act Appropriations $35.2 billion a I 14 Outlaws $13.9 billion 'Vi- 55.0 56.0 5 . $5.3 54.5 54.5 ?1 $3.4 $3.4 52.5 1 51-9 $1.8 51.? . 51.2 son son - 50.4 song.? Energy Conservation Environmental Loan Guarantees for Grid Modernization Carbon Capture and Basic Science Establishment of the and Renewable Management Renewable Energy Sequestration Research Advanced Research Eiiergv Sources and Electric Power Projects Agencv- Transmission Projects Energy Chart 1 1: Linking Priorities, Budget and Cost BUDGETARY- PROGRAM coST" RES (GROSS. IN BiLLioiisi STRATEGIC. GOAIS STRATEGIC. OBJECT IVE (5. IN FY. 2011 FY. 2010 Transform our Energy Deploy the technologies we have 18.1 5 .. .. 13.1 . . 5 Stems Discoverthe new. solutions we need .. .. 15.0 . 4.0 .. 3.0 Leadthe National conversation on on ergo.?r 0.2 0.2 0.2 . Extend our knowledge ofthe natural world .. .. 3.6 . 3.5 . ..3.1 The SCIence and . . . Deliver new technologies to advance our mission 1.8 1.4 1.2 En ineerin Enter rise Sustain .. .. . .. Support the U.S. nuclear stockpile and future military needs 6.2 5.1 Reduce global nuclear dangers 2.4 1.8 Apply our capabilities for other critical national securityr Secure Our Nation missions .. .. 1.2 . 1.2 ..1.2 Support responsible civilian nuclear power development andfuel cycle management 0.2 ..0.2 0.3 Ca mplete environmental remediation at our legacy and active sites 3.6 13 3.4 a Budgetary Expenditures incurred is synonymous with delivered orders, amounts accrued or paidfor services performed, forgoods and tangible property received, orforprograrnsfor which. no current service. is required such, as loans. Budgetary Expenditures are obtained from the Budgetary Standard General Ledger and are reported/recorded based on hudgetaryaccounting rules. includes capital expenditures but excludes such items as depreciation, changes in unfunded liability estimates, and certain other non-fund costs and allocations ofDepartnient Administration activities. l} Program Costs {Gross} are takenfrorn the Department?s Consolidated Statements oflVet Cost. US. Department ofEnergy Summary of Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2011 22 Management. Challenges DOE. MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES Contract and Project Administration 5 Acquisition Process Management 5 I6 CHALLENGE AREAS FY. 2011 Contract and Financial Assistance Award Management 5 GAO. CHALLENG E. AREAS. Resolve contract administration and project management problems for large and complex projects Security Environmental Cleanup Nuclear Waste Disposal Environmental Cleanup Nuclear Waste Disposal Stockpile Stewardship Improvethe safety, reliability and physical and information security for the, Nation?s nuclear weapons stockpile Cyber Security 5 Cyber Security 5 Energy Supply Enhance the development, management and protection of assets vital to the nation?s energy and national. security Human Capital Management Human Capital Management Address the human capital challenge of developing and retaining a skilled workforce capable of overseeing complex projects 5 Safety 81 Health, 5 Sustain the relevance and effectiveness of nonproliferation efforts RecoveryAct and Operational Efficiency and Cost Savings and 5 mission direct mission support US. Department of Energy Summary of Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2011 23