The Department of Energy's (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) manages the research and development portfolio of the Vehicle Technologies (VT) Program for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). A key objective of the VT program is accelerating the development and production of electric drive vehicle systems in order to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum. Another of its goals is the development of production-ready batteries, power electronics, and electric machines that can be produced in volume economically so as to increase the use of electric drive vehicles (EDVs). Congress appropriated significant funding for the VT program in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5 (Recovery Act) in order to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment in addition to furthering the existing objectives of the VT program. DOE solicited applications for this funding by issuing a competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement (DE-FOA-0000026), Recovery Act - Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative, on March 19, 2009. This project, Power Ring Manufacturing Scale-up, was one of the 30 DOE selected for funding. DOE's Proposed Action is to provide $9,090,000 in financial assistance in a cost sharing arrangement with the project proponent, SBE, Inc. (SBE). The total cost of the project is estimated at $18,186,387. The overall purpose and need for DOE action pursuant to the VT program and the funding opportunity under the Recovery Act is to accelerate the development and production of various electric drive vehicle systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. DOE intends to further this purpose and satisfy this need by providing financial assistance under cost-sharing arrangements to this and the other 29 projects selected under this funding opportunity announcement. This and the other selected projects are needed to reduce the United States' petroleum consumption by investing in alternative vehicle technologies. Successful commercialization of EDVs would support DOE's Energy Strategic Goal of "protect ing] our national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy." This project will also meaningfully assist in the nation's economic recovery by creating manufacturing jobs in the United States in accordance with the objectives of the Recovery Act.

DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of providing two types of financial assistance to Dow Kokam MI, LLC to construct and operate the Midland Battery Park for manufacturing of advanced lithium polymer batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles: (1) a grant under Funding Opportunity Announcement DE-FOA 0000026, Recovery Act - Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative and (2) a loan pursuant to Section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 as an automotive component supplier promoting improved fuel economy in light-duty vehicles. As the name of the grant Funding Opportunity Announcement indicates, the grant would be made from funds appropriated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act; Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115). This EA analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed construction and operation of the battery manufacturing facility by Dow Kokam MI, LLC, the two proposed federal actions (a grant and a loan), and the alternatives to the proposed project. The Midland Battery Park would be constructed on a 50-acre vacant site in Midland, Michigan, that is zoned industrial and surrounded by other industrial and commercial facilities. The new battery manufacturing facility would be about 770,000 square feet in size and would require a new 1- to 2-mile-long electric transmission line. DOE evaluated 15 resource areas in this EA and identified no significant adverse impacts for DOE's proposed actions, which would facilitate construction of the Midland Battery Park. With the following exceptions, impacts to the resource areas and issues examined would not occur or would be negligible. The proposed project site would be located in an area where soils were previously contaminated with dioxin and near areas with shallow groundwater contaminated with vinyl chloride and Freon 11. Concentrations of dioxin at the site are within acceptable limits for industrial uses and due care requirements would be implemented during construction to minimize risks of exposure. Discharge permit requirements for the safe handling and treatment of contaminated groundwater would be implemented during temporary dewatering to excavate and install detention basins and underground utilities. Over nine acres of isolated non-jurisdictional wetlands would be filled to construct the facility. The state of Michigan determined that these wetlands are not regulated under Federal or State laws. Detention basins would be created to temporarily store on-site storm water runoff and replace the main function of these low value wetlands. DOE determined that grading and filling these wetlands would not cause significant adverse impacts. A new transmission line could be a risk to migratory birds and could impact nearby wetlands and sensitive species. However, the transmission line should be designed to avoid these wetlands and protected species and common design standards should be implemented to minimize risks to migratory birds. Beneficial economic impacts would occur from increased employment opportunities and spending in the local economy. The use of batteries produced at this facility would increase the use of electric and hybrid vehicles, which would help reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from vehicles and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

DOE prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess the potential for impacts to the human and natural environment of its Proposed Action-providing financial assistance to Pyrotek under a cooperative agreement. DOE's objective is to support the development of the EDV industry in an effort to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. More specifically, DOE's objective is to accelerate the development and production of various EDV systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, DOE would provide approximately 50 percent of the funding for Pyrotek to construct an industrial building; installation of electrically heated furnaces and other production equipment such as conveyors, collectors, screens, and cooling towers required to accomplish the proposed expansion of the graphitization process on the Metaullics Systems' Sanborn facility in Sanborn, New York. The expansion would result in an increase in anode material production capacity to meet higher projected demands, decrease processing costs to provide lower priced material to customers, and meet the objectives of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, by creating and preserving jobs. The project would create approximately 50 new jobs and retain approximately 55 existing facility jobs. The environmental analysis identified that the most notable changes, although minor, to result from Pyrotek's Proposed Project would occur in the following areas: air quality, noise, geology and soils, surface water, vegetation and wildlife, solid and hazardous waste, and transportation and traffic. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes.

The novelty of this work is the fact that it introduces a rigorous and objective economic perspective of current renewable energy support mechanisms and an empirical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of these mechanisms, which is much needed in a debate often dominated by widespread misconceptions. The economic rationale for renewable energy is straightforward: the optimum amount of renewable energy for grid-connected generation is given by the intersection of the renewable energy supply curve with the avoided cost of thermal electricity generation. The proposed analytical framework: (i) differentiates and illustrates trade-offs among local, regional, and national impacts, in the short and long run; (ii) captures distributional impacts; and (iii) captures externalities and compares alternative projects based on equivalent output and cost. Accordingly, the study advocates for the need to get the economic, financial, and institutional basics right for the deployment of renewable energy. The study s integration of renewable energy subsidies with fossil subsidies is another novel and important contribution. This allows important comparisons. For example, to reduce carbon intensity in developing country economies, is it more efficient to deploy renewable energy or implement alternative options, such as eliminating subsidies on fossil fuels? The work is based on case studies of Vietnam, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Tanzania, Egypt, Brazil, and Turkey, selected to provide a representative sample of countries with different energy endowments (coal, natural gas, and hydro-based systems) and policy incentives (from feed-in tariffs to auctions). Along the way, the incremental cost of renewable energy is compared with the average cost of generation. The selection and design of support mechanisms in turn determines the impacts on the budget and residential consumers. The main lessons emerging from the case studies are that successful renewable energy policies: Will only be effective once the state-owned utilities who are the buyers of grid-connected renewable energy are themselves in good financial health Need to be grounded in economic analysis and accompanied by the application of market principles to ensure economic efficiency Require a sustainable, equitable, and transparent recovery of incremental costs"

Due to the growth in natural gas production, primarily from shale gas, the United States is benefitting from some of the lowest prices for natural gas in the world and faces the question of how to best use this resource. Different segments of the U.S. economy have different perspectives on the role natural gas can play. Suppliers, which have become the victims of their own production success, are facing low prices that are forecast to remain low. Some companies that have traditionally produced only natural gas have even turned their attention to oil in order to improve their financial situation. Smaller companies are having a difficult time continuing operations and larger companies, including international companies, have bought into many shale gas assets. Prices have remained low even as consumption has increased, in part, because producers have raised production to meet the demand and because companies have improved efficiency and extraction techniques. Some companies, many with large production operations, have applied for permits to export natural gas. This has raised concerns from consumers of natural gas that domestic prices will rise. The debate regarding exports is ongoing. Industries that consume natural gas have seen input costs drop, and some have heralded low natural gas prices as the impetus for a manufacturing revolution in the United States. Some companies have begun to make major investments to take advantage of the low natural gas prices, particularly in petrochemicals. Other companies are waiting to see if prices will remain low long enough to warrant major investments in new facilities. Meanwhile, the electric power sector has already seen a transition from coal-fired generation to natural gas. Low natural gas prices are also putting pressure on renewable sources of power generation. However, increases in demand will put upward pressure on natural gas prices. The transportation sector, the one part of the economy vulnerable to foreign energy supplies, is beginning to explore ways to use more natural gas. Transportation makes up less than 1% of U.S. natural gas consumption and would require billions of dollars in investment to increase that share significantly. All of the change that has taken place so far has occurred despite environmental concerns and regulatory developments at the state and federal level that might curtail production. Natural gas is a fossil fuel that produces various pollutants, some more than other fossil fuels and some less. Methane, the major component of natural gas, is also a potent greenhouse gas when released without burning. Other environmental concerns focus on water use and disposal in hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas from shale formations. Over the next five years, many of the issues being debated now may be decided. The industry and market are adapting to the newly found supplies and the concerns associated with them, as well as integrating more natural gas into the economy. There are many evolving issues some of which Congress can influence directly because of statutes and some indirectly. On the demand side, legislation has been introduced regarding exports of liquefied natural gas and alternative fuels for vehicles. There has been other legislation related to environmental regulations of natural gas.

This World Bank review of India s power sector assesses state-wise progress in implementing the government s reform agenda two decades after the liberalization of India s economy and a decade after the passage of the forward-looking Electricity Act of 2003 (EA). It examines the performance of the sector along the following dimensions, drawing on in-depth background papers achievements in access, the financial and operational performance of utilities, governance, private participation, and the coverage and targeting of domestic user subsidies. Despite considerable progress in implementing the EA mandates and associated policies over the past decade, the report shows that sector finances remain weak. After-tax losses in 2011 were equivalent to nearly 17 percent of India s gross fiscal deficit and around 0.7 percent of GDP; they were concentrated in the distribution segment. Twenty years after the initiation of reforms, an inefficient, loss-making power sector and inadequate and unreliable power supply are major constraints to India s growth, inclusion, job creation, and aspirations for middle-income country status. This report shows that achieving sector outcomes is linked closely to the degree to which each state has implemented the EA. Key reforms mandated by the EA have still not been implemented in full, with progress in promoting competition lagging furthest behind. Further, multiple institutions with diffuse accountability have undermined the sector s commercial orientation: state governments are a major presence with a generally detrimental impact on utility operations; the regulatory environment has not sufficiently pushed utilities to improve performance; and, the flow of liquidity from lenders has limited the pressure on discoms to improve performance and on state governments to allow tariff increases. An important contribution of this report is its forthright recognition that poor power sector performance in India is rooted in distribution inefficiencies and limited accountability. This leads the authors to conclude with recommendations directed at these specific aspects in order to improve service delivery and other metrics of sector performance, put the sector on a financially sustainable path, and help ensure that power is no longer a bottleneck for growth."

The "Top 25 Coal and Minerals Mining of 2011-2012" report provides insights into the state of mining performance measurement today by listing and analyzing the most visited KPIs for this industry on smartKPIs.com in 2011. In addition to KPI names, it contains a detailed description of each KPI, in the standard smartKPIs.com KPI documentation format that includes fields such as: definition, purpose, calculation, limitation, overall notes and additional resources. This product is part of the "Top KPIs of 2011-2012" series of reports and a result of the research program conducted by the analysts of smartKPIs.com in the area of integrated performance management and measurement. SmartKPIs.com hosts the largest catalogue of thoroughly documented KPI examples, representing an excellent platform for research and dissemination of insights on KPIs and related topics. The hundreds of thousands of visits to smartKPIs.com and the thousands of KPIs visited, bookmarked and rated by members of this online community in 2011 provided a rich data set, which combined with further analysis from the editorial team, formed the basis of these research reports.

The Department of Energy's (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) manages the research and development portfolio of the Vehicle Technologies (VT) Program for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). A key objective of the VT program is accelerating the development and production of electric drive vehicle systems in order to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum. Another of its goals is the development of production-ready batteries, power electronics, and electric machines that can be produced in volume economically so as to increase the use of electric drive vehicles (EDVs). Congress appropriated significant funding for the VT program in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5 (Recovery Act) in order to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment in addition to furthering the existing objectives of the VT program. DOE solicited applications for this funding by issuing a competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement (DE-FOA-0000026), Recovery Act - Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative, on March 19, 2009. This project, U.S. Electric Drive Manufacturing Center - Global Rear-Wheel Drive (RWD) Electric Validation Center, was one of the 30 DOE selected for funding. DOE's Proposed Action is to provide $105,387,000 in financial assistance in a cost sharing arrangement with the project proponent, General Motors LLC (General Motors or GM). The total cost of the project is estimated at $245,900,733. The overall purpose and need for DOE action pursuant to the VT program and the funding opportunity under the Recovery Act is to accelerate the development and production of various electric drive vehicle systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. DOE intends to further this purpose and satisfy this need by providing financial assistance under cost-sharing arrangements to this and the other 29 projects selected under this funding opportunity announcement. This and the other selected projects are needed to reduce the United States' petroleum consumption by investing in alternative vehicle technologies. Successful commercialization of EDVs would support DOE's Energy Strategic Goal of "protect ing] our national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy." This project will also meaningfully assist in the nation's economic recovery by creating manufacturing jobs in the United States in accordance with the objectives of the Recovery Act.

Unlocking Commercial Financing for Clean Eneargy in East Asia was written for government decision makers in middle and high-income countries, members of international financing communities, and practitioners. In East Asia, all middle-income countries have national targets for energy efficiency and renewable energy, and some even have targets for carbon reduction. However, a major hurdle to achieving a sustainable energy path is mobilizing the required financing. Policy makers must determine how to unlock commercial financing to scale up clean energy investments. Unlocking Commercial Financing for Clean Energy in East Asia builds on recent experience in applying public financing instruments and attempts to address the following issues: when and under what circumstances to use public financing instruments, which instrument to select, and how to design and implement them most effectively. First and foremost, effective and conducive policies are essential to catalyzing commercial investment in clean energy. Once the right policy regime has been put in place, public financing mechanisms designed to mitigate risks and close financing gaps have proven to play a major catalytic role in kick-starting substantial investments in clean energy. Public financing mechanisms for energy efficiency are particularly important to mitigating financiers' risk perceptions, to aggregating small deals, and to enhancing the interest and capacity of domestic banks. Public financing for renewable energy can provide long-term loan tenure to match the long payback period, mitigate technology risks, and increase access to financing for small and medium enterprises. The selection of public financing instruments should be tailored to the market barriers, the targeted market segments, the regulatory environment, and the maturity of the financial market. Engaging domestic banks through credit lines and guarantees has had the greatest impact in unlocking private financing. Dedicated funds and mezzanine and equity funds can effectively increase access to financing for small and medium enterprises and clean energy start-ups. Finally, the impact of public financing instruments can be substantially increased if they are packaged with technical assistance.

The "Top 25 Natural Gas KPIs of 2011-2012" report provides insights into the state of the industry's performance measurement today by listing and analyzing the most visited KPIs for this industry on smartKPIs.com in 2011. In addition to KPI names, it contains a detailed description of each KPI, in the standard smartKPIs.com KPI documentation format, that includes fields such as: definition, purpose, calculation, limitation, overall notes and additional resources. This product is part of the "Top KPIs of 2011-2012" series of reports and a result of the research program conducted by the analysts of smartKPIs.com in the area of integrated performance management and measurement. SmartKPIs.com hosts the largest catalogue of thoroughly documented KPI examples, representing an excellent platform for research and dissemination of insights on KPIs and related topics. The hundreds of thousands of visits to smartKPIs.com and the thousands of KPIs visited, bookmarked and rated by members of this online community in 2011 provided a rich data set, which combined with further analysis from the editorial team, formed the basis of these research reports.

DOE prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to review the potential for impacts to the human and natural environment of its Proposed Action-providing financial assistance to EnerG2 under a cooperative agreement. DOE's objective is to support the development of the EDV industry in an effort to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. More specifically, DOE's objective is to accelerate the development and production of various EDV systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components. DOE's program will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. Under the terms of this cooperative agreement, DOE would provide approximately 75 percent of the funding for EnerG2 to establish a commercial-size manufacturing plant for fine-grained carbon powder (also known as electrode carbon) having a high degree of purity, a high surface area per unit mass, and an improved pore structure. The plant would be setup inside an existing warehouse currently owned by Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc. and located in Albany, Oregon. If successful, the plant would help meet the growing needs of domestic and global producers of EDVs and HEVs. The production capacity would be enough to support building at least 60,000 EDVs per year. Additionally, the project would create approximately 50 temporary construction jobs and approximately 35 permanent jobs. The environmental analysis identified that the most notable changes, although minor, to result from EnerG2's Proposed Project would occur in the following areas: air quality and greenhouse gas, noise, geology and soils, vegetation and wildlife, solid and hazardous wastes, utilities, transportation and traffic, and human health and safety. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes.

This environmental assessment (EA) addresses the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project located at the Morgantown, West Virginia, site of the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). The Performance Verification Laboratory (PVL) project was proposed in response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Facilities and Equipment Upgrade Lab Call #09-002. NETL will design, construct, and make operational a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) PVL facility for verifying the energy performance of selected appliances and equipment to facilitate improved enforcement of DOE energy conservation standards and DOE/Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ENERGY STAR(r) programs. The PVL facility will build upon the capabilities of NETL's existing Appliance Technology Evaluation Center (ATEC). Currently, ATEC is used to help DOE improve its test procedures through experimental investigations (testing and other evaluations) of appliances/equipment. PVL will expand the current ATEC capabilities and add large-scale performance verification testing that will complement DOE's increasing focus on emerging equipment and appliance standards activities. The resulting data from this facility will enhance existing standards and test procedure development at NETL, as well as provide a valuable resource to support compliance and enforcement activities for the Energy Conservation Standards program within DOE. Executive Order 13123, "Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management," requires federal agencies to improve their environmental and energy performance and to meet specified environmental performance goals. Constructing an energy efficient "green" building would allow NETL to reduce electricity use and meet environmental performance goals. This EA has been prepared to satisfy requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations found in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 1500-1508 (Council on Environmental Quality) and Title 10, CFR, Part 1021 (Department of Energy). Results of this assessment indicate that the construction activities associated with the proposed project would potentially have minor impacts on permitted discharge areas, groundwater, and greenhouse gases (GHGs). An increase in the number of cars and trucks associated with the construction activities would negatively impact traffic and public facilities and services. Operation of heavy machinery during construction would also have an adverse effect on air quality (i.e., dust and exhaust particulate air emissions) and increase noise and vibration in the immediate vicinity of the work area. These effects would be controlled to the greatest extent possible to minimize their impact. The construction of the PVL facility would positively impact the local area through the creation of 24 jobs. Operation of the PVL facility would result in the creation of approximately 14 permanent jobs at the Morgantown NETL site, most of which would be new hires. Traffic and public facilities and services would be negatively impacted by the increased flow of cars and delivery trucks to the new facility. Because the operation of this facility would support the increased penetration and acceptance of energy-efficient appliances and equipment in the marketplace, the work done at the PVL would ultimately contribute to a reduction in GHG productio

The Department of Energy (DOE) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act; Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat.115) financial assistance grant to Rhode Island LFG Genco, LLC (RI-LFGG) to facilitate expansion of an existing landfill gas collection system and construction and operation of a combined cycle power generation plant at the Central Landfill in Johnston, Rhode Island. DOE's Proposed Action would provide $15 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement with the project proponent, RI-LFGG. The total cost of the project is estimated to be about $100 million. The primary objective of RI-LFGG's proposed project is to maximize the productive use of waste landfill gas generated at the Central Landfill in Johnston, Rhode Island. RI-LFGG would expand the existing gas collection system at the landfill and construct a landfill gas recovery and treatment plant and a 42-megawatt landfill gas-to-electric generating power plant. The power generated from the proposed project would be distributed to the local power grid via a new 2,000-foot electric transmission line to connect to the existing grid. This EA evaluates 14 resource areas and identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project. Beneficial impacts to the nation's energy efficiency and local economy could be recognized. The proposed project would generate about 366,000 megawatt-hours per year of electricity. By destroying the methane in the landfill gas, the proposed project would generate carbon dioxide equivalent reductions of greater than 1.4 million tons annually and the avoidance of over 165,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year from not using fossil fuels for generating a similar amount of electricity.

Energy Industries and Sustainability, a Berkshire Essential, covers the exploitation of energy resources-such as coal, petroleum, and wood-and the innovations that can provide the energy we need for a cleaner, safer, and more sustainable future. Forty expert authors explain concepts such as ""materials substitution"" and the ""polluter pays principle"" and examine the industries and practices that bring us energy from the sun, water, and wind. This concise handbook offers a broad view of positive steps being taken to make responsible energy use a priority around the globe, and is designed for use in classrooms at the high school and college level. The book will be helpful to engaged citizens as well as to business people, policy makers, and environmental professionals. Controversial topics such as nuclear power and fracking are explained clearly and impartially, with a view to promoting thoughtful discussion and informed decision-making.

DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing a financial assistance grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in a cooperative agreement with the Beacon Power Corporation (Beacon Power) as part of the Smart Grid Demonstrations Program. This EA evaluates two similar proposed projects in two locations: Site 1 evaluates installation of a utility-scale 20-megawatt flywheel energy storage and frequency regulation plant in Chicago Heights, Illinois, to provide frequency regulation services to PJM Interconnection, the electrical grid operator. The cost of the proposed project at the Illinois location would be about $48.1 million. Site 2 evaluates installation of the same system in Hazle Township, Pennsylvania. The cost of the proposed project at the Pennsylvania location would be about $53 million. DOE could choose to provide a grant for either location. DOE's Proposed Action would provide approximately $24 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement to Beacon Power. In addition, for the proposed project in Pennsylvania (Site 2), Beacon Power could receive a $5 million grant from Pennsylvania's Redevelopment Capital Assistance Program. This EA evaluates the environmental resource areas DOE commonly addresses in its EAs and identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project. The proposed projects could result in beneficial impacts to the nation's energy efficiency and the local economy, and could contribute to a minor reduction of greenhouse gases.

Wind energy has been the fastest growing source of U.S. electric power generation in recent years. The increase in federal funding for wind technologies and involvement of multiple agencies has raised questions about fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative federal support. In this report, GAO examines federal wind-related initiatives-programs or groups of agency activities that promoted wind energy through a specific emphasis or focus. GAO (1) identifies wind-related initiatives implemented by federal agencies in fiscal year 2011 and their key characteristics; (2) assesses the extent of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, if any, among these initiatives, and the extent to which they were coordinated; and (3) examines how agencies allocate support to projects through their initiatives and the extent to which they assess applicant need for support. GAO identified 82 federal wind-related initiatives, with a variety of key characteristics, implemented by nine agencies in fiscal year 2011. Five agencies-the Departments of Energy (DOE), the Interior, Agriculture (USDA), Commerce, and the Treasury-collectively implemented 73 of the initiatives. Initiatives supporting deployment of wind facilities, such as those financing their construction or use, constituted the majority of initiatives and accounted for nearly all obligations and estimated tax subsidies related to wind in fiscal year 2011. In particular, a tax expenditure and a grant initiative, both administered by Treasury, accounted for nearly all federal financial support for wind energy. The 82 wind-related initiatives GAO identified were fragmented across agencies, most had overlapping characteristics, and several that financed deployment of wind facilities provided some duplicative financial support. The 82 initiatives were fragmented because they were implemented across nine agencies, and 68 overlapped with at least one other initiative because of shared characteristics. About half of all initiatives reported formal coordination. Such coordination can, in principle, reduce the risk of unnecessary duplication and improve the effectiveness of federal efforts. However, GAO identified 7 initiatives that have provided duplicative support-financial support from multiple initiatives to the same recipient for deployment of a single project. GAO also identified 3 other initiatives that did not fund any wind projects in fiscal year 2011 but that could, based on their eligibility criteria, be combined with 1 or more initiatives to provide duplicative support. Of the 10 initiatives, those at Treasury accounted for over 95 percent of the federal financial support for wind in fiscal year 2011. Agencies implementing the 10 initiatives allocate support to projects on the basis of the initiatives' goals or eligibility criteria, but the extent to which applicant financial need is considered is unclear. DOE and USDA allocate support based on projects' ability to meet initiative goals such as reducing emissions or benefitting rural communities, as well as other criteria. Both agencies also consider applicant need for the support of some initiatives, according to officials. However, GAO found that neither agency documents assessments of applicant need; therefore the extent to which they use such assessments to determine how much support to provide is unclear. Unlike DOE and USDA, Treasury generally supports projects based on the tax code's eligibility criteria and does not have discretion to allocate support to projects based on need. While the support of these initiatives may be necessary in many cases for wind projects to be built, because agencies do not document assessments of need, it is unclear, in some cases, if the entire amount of federal support provided was necessary. Federal support in excess of what is needed to induce projects to be built could instead be used to induce other projects to be built or simply withheld, thereby reducing federal expenditures. GAO-13-136

Since the late 1970s, U.S. policymakers at both the federal and state levels have authorized a variety of incentives, regulations, and programs to encourage the production and use of agriculture-based biofuels-i.e., any fuel produced from biological materials. Initially, federal biofuels policies were developed to help kick-start the biofuels industry during its early development, when neither production capacity nor a market for the finished product was widely available. Federal policy (e.g., tax credits, import tariffs, grants, loans, and loan guarantees) has played a key role in helping to close the price gap between biofuels and cheaper petroleum fuels. Now, as the industry has evolved, other policy goals (e.g., national energy security, climate change concerns, support for rural economies) are cited by proponents as justification for continuing or enhancing federal policy support. The U.S. biofuels sector responded to these government incentives by expanding output every year from 1980 through 2011 (with the exception of 1996), with important implications for the domestic and international food and fuel sectors. Production of the primary U.S. biofuel, ethanol (derived from corn starch), has risen from about 175 million gallons in 1980 to nearly 14 billion gallons in 2011. U.S. biodiesel production (derived primarily from vegetable oil), albeit much smaller, has also shown strong growth, rising from 0.5 million gallons in 1999 to a record 969 million gallons in 2012. Despite the rapid growth of the past decades, total agriculture-based biofuels consumption accounted for only about 8% of U.S. transportation fuel consumption (9.7% of gasoline and 1.5% of diesel) in 2012. Federal biofuels policies have had costs, including unintended market and environmental consequences and large federal outlays (estimated at $7.7 billion in 2011, but declining to $1.3 billion in 2012 with the expiration of the ethanol blender's tax credit). Despite the direct and indirect costs of federal biofuels policy and the relatively small role of biofuels as an energy source, the U.S. biofuels sector continues to push for federal involvement. But critics of federal policy intervention in the biofuels sector have also emerged. Current issues and policy developments related to the U.S. biofuels sector that are of interest to Congress include: Many federal biofuels policies require routine congressional monitoring and occasional reconsideration in the form of reauthorization or new appropriations; The 10% ethanol-to-gasoline blend ratio-known as the "blend wall"-poses a barrier to expansion of ethanol use. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued waivers to allow ethanol blending of up to 15% (per gallon of gasoline) for use in model year 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles. However, the limitation to newer vehicles, coupled with infrastructure issues, could limit rapid expansion of blending rates; The slow development of cellulosic biofuels has raised concerns about the industry's ability to meet large federal usage mandates, which in turn has raised the potential for future EPA waivers of mandated biofuel volumes and has contributed to a cycle of slow investment in and development of the sector. In 2012, the expiration of the blender tax credit, poor profit margins (due primarily to high corn prices), and the emerging blend wall limitation have contributed to a drop-off in ethanol production and have generated considerable uncertainty about the ethanol industry's future.

The current distribution of power markets around intermediate structures between full integration and unbundling suggests that there has not been a linear path to reform in practice. Instead, many developing countries may retain intermediate structures in the foreseeable future. This possibility exposes a large gap in understanding about power market structures, since most theoretical work has focused on the two extreme structures and there is limited evidence on the impact of unbundling for developing countries. The study reports the evidence from statistical analysis and a representative sample of twenty case studies selected based on the initial conditions, such as income and power system size. It proposes a novel analytical approach to model market structure, together with ownership and regulation, controlling for several variables, as a key determinant of performance across several indicators, including access, operational and financial performance and environmental sustainability. The results of the analysis provide the following conclusions for policy guidance on power market restructuring for developing countries: There seems to be credible empirical basis for selecting a threshold power system size and per capita income level below which unbundling of the power supply chain is not expected to be worthwhile. Indeed a dichotomy emerges between high income countries characterized by a large system size for which unbundling and other reforms are significantly linked to better performance and low income countries characterized by small system power size for which there is no strong evidence that unbundling and other reforms delivered improvements in performance. Unbundling deliver consistently superior results across the board of performance indicators when used as an entry point to implement broader reforms, particularly introducing a sound regulatory framework, reducing the degree of concentration of the generation and distribution segments of the market by attracting additional number of both public and private players and encouraging private sector participation. Partial forms of vertical unbundling do not appear to drive improvements, probably because the owner was able to continue exercising control over the affairs of the sector and hinder the development of competitive pressure within the power market. Although the quest for growth remains as elusive as it was more than a decade ago, there is now much greater consensus on the policies and institutional changes that are needed to foster growth and economic development. But debate continues on the timing, sequencing, and local adaptation of these reforms. Furthermore, although the benefits of reform are well documented--the reasons as to why and when reforms occur still remain somewhat unclear. Many countries go through long periods of stagnation or even decline, without being able to create an environment for change, while others seem able to break the hold of vested interests and start following paths of reform. In October 2004, the Operations Evaluation Department (OED) of the World Bank held a conference on the Effectiveness of Policies and Reform. This event provided a forum at which participants--over 500 government officials, civil society representatives, and World Bank staff--could discuss how to improve the effectiveness of World Bank support for development policies and reform programs. Included in this volume are the contributions of distinguished development practitioners on issues such as: the links between good performance and policy change; how windows of opportunity can best be used to promote reform; how ownership of policies and reform programs can be encouraged; and how developed country policies can be improved to create a better global environment for development. Ajay Chhibber is director of the Operations Evaluation Department of the World Bank and was World Bank country director for Turkey from 1997 to 2003. R. Kyle Peters is senior manager, Country Evaluation and Regional Relations, in the Operations Evaluation Department of the World Bank. Barbara J. Yale is a consultant with the Operations Evaluation Department of the World Bank.