Smart grids are for everyone but require the vision and investment plans for grid modernization. This document provides some practical elements on how to develop a smart grid vision and investment plan with a focus on the distribution side and also briefly discusses finance and regulatory issues.

The large-scale transformation of Kazakhstan's power sector following independence in 1991 was reflected by the country's move toward liberalizing the market and implementing sector regulation. As an early adopter of a liberalised multimarket model consisting of bilateral, spot, balancing, ancillary, and capacity submarkets Kazakhstan's power sector was regarded a market reform leader among countries of the former Soviet Union, having achieved a much improved supply and demand balance and service quality. However, despite the noteworthy headway, sector reforms remain predominantly as unfinished business. The excess generation capacity that was inherited from the former Soviet Union at a time when the "energy-only" market prices were too low to attract serious investors has masked the need to reflect on the long-term outlook of the country's power production. As the investment crunch unfolded in the mid-2000s, a diverging concern almost immediately arose; that is, the capacity additions of existing and planned generations may not be sufficient to keep pace with the perpetuating and significant increase in the demand for power. Instead of applying market mechanisms to allow prices to rise and reflect the underlying supply and demand gap, the GoK addressed the issue by implementing administrative, command-and-control measures. This study draws on the World Bank's long-standing engagement in Kazakhstan's energy sector and a number of recent technical assistance and advisory support activities. The study aims to (i) objectively identify the principal challenges faced by the Kazakhstan power sector in its ongoing transition and outlining potential policy options; and (ii) draw lessons from Kazakhstan's experience in sector reforms for the broader international audience. The study covers broader sector issues including long-term least-cost power system planning, supply and demand balancing, tariff setting, market structure, and integration of renewable energy

This World Bank review, Governance of Indian State Power Utilities: An Ongoing Journey, is a first attempt to systematically examine the quality of corporate and regulatory governance in the Indian power sector. Considering that much of the poor performance of utilities reflected internal and external shortfalls in governance, India's Electricity Act of 2003 mandated unbundling and corporatising the vertically integrated state electricity boards, along with establishing independent regulators at the center and in the states. The aim was to create a more accountable and commercial performance culture. A particular motivation was the need to keep the state government at arm's length from utilities and regulators alike. This review assesses aspects of corporate governance that would be expected to increase the internal and external accountability of utilities; the institutional design of state-level regulation; and the extent to which regulators have implemented key elements of their mandate. In addition, it examines the correlation between the adoption of recommended corporate governance practices and utility performance, and between regulatory governance and utility performance. It finds that while unbundling the electricity boards has progressed quite well on paper, actual separation and functional independence of the unbundled entities is considerably less than it appears - and clearly identifying the contributions of individual entities in the service value chain and holding them accountable for their performance remains difficult. Corporatisation has been unable to insulate utilities from state interference because boards remain state dominated, lack sufficient decision-making authority, and are rarely evaluated on performance. Also, the regulatory environment has not sufficiently pushed utilities to improve performance. State electricity regulatory commissions have been established in all states, but a lack of accountability and autonomy and limited technical capacity have restricted their ability to create an independent, transparent, and unbiased governance framework for the sector that balances consumer and investor/utility interests.

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

The Department of Energy (DOE) has made $15 billion in loan guarantees and conditionally committed to an additional $15 billion, but the program does not have the consolidated data on application status needed to facilitate efficient management and program oversight. For the 460 applications to the Loan Guarantee Program (LGP), DOE has made loan guarantees for 7 percent and committed to an additional 2 percent. The time the LGP took to review loan applications decreased over the course of the program, according to GAO's analysis of LGP data. However, when GAO requested data from the LGP on the status of these applications, the LGP did not have consolidated data readily available and had to assemble these data over several months from various sources. Without consolidated data on applicants, LGP managers do not have readily accessible information that would facilitate more efficient program management, and LGP staff may not be able to identify weaknesses, if any, in the program's application review process and approval procedures. Furthermore, because it took months to assemble the data required for GAO's review, it is also clear that the data were not readily available to conduct timely oversight of the program. LGP officials have acknowledged the need for a consolidated system and said that the program has begun developing a comprehensive business management system that could also be used to track the status of LGP applications. However, the LGP has not committed to a timetable to fully implement this system. The LGP adhered to most of its established process for reviewing applications, but its actual process differed from its established process at least once on 11 of the 13 applications GAO reviewed. Private lenders who finance energy projects that GAO interviewed found that the LGP's established review process was generally as stringent as or more stringent than their own. However, GAO found that the reviews that the LGP conducted sometimes differed from its established process in that, for example, actual reviews skipped applicable review steps. In other cases, GAO could not determine whether the LGP had performed some established review steps because of poor documentation. Omitting or poorly documenting reviews reduces the LGP's assurance that it has treated applicants consistently and equitably and, in some cases, may affect the LGP's ability to fully assess and mitigate project risks. Furthermore, the absence of adequate documentation may make it difficult for DOE to defend its decisions on loan guarantees as sound and fair if it is questioned about the justification for and equity of those decisions. One cause of the differences between established and actual processes was that, according to LGP staff, they were following procedures that had been revised but were not yet updated in the credit policies and procedures manual, which governs much of the LGP's established review process. In particular, the version of the manual in use at the time of GAO's review was dated March 5, 2009, even though the manual states it was meant to be updated at least annually, and more frequently as needed. The updated manual dated October 6, 2011, addresses many of the differences GAO identified. Officials also demonstrated that LGP had taken steps to address the documentation issues by beginning to implement its new document management system. However, by the close of GAO's review, LGP could not provide sufficient documentation to resolve the issues identified in the review.

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.

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 Brea Power II, LLC (Brea Power; formerly Ridgewood Renewable Power, LLC). The grant would facilitate expansion of an existing landfill gas collection system, and construction and operation of a combined cycle power generation facility at the Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea, California. DOE's proposed action is to provide $10 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement with the project proponent, Brea Power. The cost of the project is estimated to be about $84 million. The primary objective of Brea Power's proposed project is to maximize the productive use of substantial quantities of waste landfill gas generated and collected at the Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea, California. The project proponent determined that utilization of the waste gas for power generation in a combustion turbine combined cycle facility was the best use for the gas. The electricity generated from the proposed project, a net output of approximately 280 kilowatt-hours of electricity annually, would be distributed to the local power grid via a new electric transmission line to be installed by the local utility company. Brea Power would expand the existing gas collection system at the landfill and build the new gas-to-energy facility across the street from the existing gas-to-energy facility. Once the new facility is operational, the existing facility would be used only as a contingency. This EA evaluates 14 resource areas and, after proposed mitigation measures, 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 project would generate 280 kilowatt-hours of electricity annually, and save an estimated 2,216 trillion British thermal units per year annually from the landfill gas that would otherwise be flared. In addition, by using nearly 50,000 tons per year of methane from the landfill gas, the project would provide carbon dioxide equivalent reductions of greater than 1 million tons annually and enable the avoidance of over 120,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year from not using fossil fuels for generating a similar amount of electricity.

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.

The 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 Toda 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 Toda to construct a manufacturing plant to produce oxide materials for cathodes for lithium-ion batteries. The plant would be located within the Fort Custer Industrial Park in Battle Creek, Michigan. The project would help meet the growing needs of domestic and global lithium-ion battery cell producers. The total production volume at this facility would be sufficient to supply batteries for around 450,000 HEVs or 125,000 plug-in HEVs. Additionally, the project would create approximately 50 permanent jobs. The environmental analysis identified that the most notable changes to result from the Toda's Proposed Project would occur in the following areas: land use, air quality and greenhouse, noise, geology and soils, surface water and groundwater, vegetation and wildlife, solid and hazardous wastes, utilities and energy use, transportation and traffic, and human health and safety. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes.

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 BASF 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 BASF to construct a commercial-size manufacturing plant for cathode material. The plant would be constructed on existing BASF property located in Elyria, Ohio, and it would help meet the growing needs of domestic and global lithium-ion battery cell producers. The cathode materials to be produced are based on technology licensed from DOE. The plant can produce enough material to supply a battery manufacturer making from 20,000 to 100,000 plug-in HEV batteries and/or their cells per year or equivalent volumes of other EDV batteries. For purposes of production volume estimation, each plug-in HEV is assumed to capable of delivering at least 5 kilowatt hours of available energy. Additionally, the project would create a number of permanent jobs. The environmental analysis identified that the most notable changes, although minor, to result from BASF's Proposed Project would occur in the following areas, although minor: air quality, noise, and solid and hazardous wastes. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes.

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, Lithium Ion (Li-Ion) Battery Manufacturing Project, was one of the 30 DOE selected for funding. DOE's Proposed Action is to provide $299,200,000 in financial assistance in a cost sharing arrangement with the project proponent, Johnson Controls, Inc. (Johnson Controls or JCI) and ENTEK International, LLC (ENTEK). The total cost of the project is estimated at $599,449,514. 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 consequences of providing a financial assistance grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act; Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115) to the Center for Commercialization of Electric Technology (CCET) to demonstrate battery technology integration with wind generated electricity by deploying and evaluating utility-scale lithium battery technology to improve grid performance and thereby aid in the integration of wind generation into the local electricity supply. This EA analyzes the potential environmental impacts of DOE's proposed action of providing the Recovery Act funding and of the No-Action Alternative. In this EA, DOE evaluated potential environmental consequences from a portion of the overall project that would involve land disturbance. Other portions are described as major elements of the project, but because they involve only installation of equipment in existing facilities, they do not involve potential for significant environmental impact and are not evaluated further. With regard to the land disturbing actions considered in this EA, DOE evaluated impacts to air quality, noise, aesthetics and visual resources, surface water resources, biological resources, and areas of environmental concern. After performing a screening analysis of other environmental resource areas, DOE concluded that impacts to some aspects of the environment would not be likely to occur or would be negligible. The proposed project would be designed in compliance with federal and state air quality regulations, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and would have a net beneficial impact on air quality in the region. New construction would involve: (1) above ground and underground 12.5 kV distribution lines, (2) 1.5 MW storage battery facility and foundation, (3) an access road, and (4) site clearing. Two wind turbines and foundations would also be constructed as part of the proposed action. Although DOE is not funding the wind turbines, the effects will be assessed as a connected action, as it is part of the overall action. Operation of the proposed project would not result in any increase in noise in the vicinity. The aesthetics of the RTC and along the easements would change with the addition of the above ground distribution lines, which would be along 5.5 miles of right-of-way utility easements, storage battery facility, access road, and wind turbines. There are two alternatives for the aboveground distribution lines; Option A extends through agricultural fields and Option B along county roads. The storage battery facility is proposed to be 20 by 40 feet with a 20 foot wide by 600 foot long access road. The wind turbines will not adversely affect the aesthetics as the location since it is in an open field with limited development in the area, and there is an existing wind turbine already on-site at the RTC along with several transmission and meteorological towers near the proposed location. Clearing of 3 acres for the proposed project on the RTC site would not significantly impact any plant or animal species population because: (1) the project site has previously been disturbed; (2) the project site is currently vacant land that is isolated from larger tracts of undisturbed land; and (3) because plant and animal species found there are expected to be widespread in the region or, for sensitive species, the area is not unique habitat. The whooping crane, which is an endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act, occurs in Lubbock County. However, the habitat needed for the whooping crane is not located within the vicinity of the project.

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 EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing a financial assistance grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to Delphi Automotive Systems, Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) (Delphi). Delphi proposes to construct a laboratory referred to as the "Delphi Kokomo, IN Corporate Technology Center" (Delphi CTC Project) and retrofit a manufacturing facility. The project would advance DOE's Vehicle Technology Program through manufacturing and testing of electric-drive vehicle components as well as assist in the nation's economic recovery by creating manufacturing jobs in the United States. The Delphi CTC Project would involve the construction and operation of a 10,700 square foot (ft2) utilities building containing boilers and heaters and a 70,000 ft2 engineering laboratory, as well as site improvements (roads, parking, buildings, landscaping, and lighting). The engineering laboratory would house equipment for helping to validate the readiness of new products for manufacture in Delphi's Kokomo Morgan Street (KMS) facility. Delphi's KMS facility is an existing 93,000 ft2 leased facility that Delphi would modify and equip for validating and producing advanced automotive electric drive components. DOE's proposed action would provide approximately $89.3 million in financial assistance in a cost sharing arrangement to Delphi. The total cost of the proposed project would be approximately $178.6 million. 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 project could result in beneficial impacts to the nation's energy efficiency and the local economy, and the electric vehicle components produced could contribute toward enabling significant reductions of greenhouse gases.