Overview
more
The Department of Energy (DOE) is a cabinet-level agency that has both important energy- and national security-related missions. DOE’s roots go all the way back to World War II and the Manhattan Project, the top-secret program that launched America’s effort to develop and stockpile nuclear weapons. DOE’s predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, managed the country’s nuclear weapons complex until the 1970s, when the Energy Department assumed that responsibility upon its creation. Today, Energy officials still oversee the laboratories that were once primarily responsible for creating weapons of mass destruction, along with implementing policies geared toward strengthening the United States’ sources of energy. DOE carries out policies ranging from nuclear power to fossil fuels to alternative energy sources. Under the current administration of President George W. Bush, nuclear power and oil development have received considerable support by DOE officials, which has provoked criticism from environmentalists and those on the left.
History:
more
The federal government’s earliest agencies that delved into energy-related policy were those that focused on petroleum and coal. The Office of Fossil Energy traces its roots back to the early 20th Century when oil was just beginning to become a much sought after fuel source for the budding automotive industry and for trans-oceanic shipping. But it was during World War II when a powerful new energy source was developed for military purposes that the US government realized it needed to greatly expand its energy policies and investment.
In 1942, federal military officials established the Manhattan Project to build the world’s first atomic bombs, which were dropped on Japan in 1945. Following the war, Congress debated whether atomic power should be controlled by civilians or the military, eventually deciding on the former by passing the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (PDF). As a result of the act, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was created and took control of the nuclear weapons complex, a sprawling network of laboratories and facilities that built America’s nuclear weapons stockpile. During the early Cold War years, AEC focused on designing and producing nuclear weapons and developing nuclear reactors for naval propulsion. This mission placed greater emphasis on weapons production than concerns over environmental degradation and health hazards produced by nuclear weapons facilities.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (PDF) ended exclusive government use of the atom and began the growth of the commercial nuclear power, giving the Atomic Energy Commission authority to regulate the new industry. In response to changing needs in the mid 1970s, the Atomic Energy Commission was abolished and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (PDF) created two new agencies: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to regulate the nuclear power industry and the Energy Research and Development Administration to manage the nuclear weapon, naval reactor and energy development programs.
However, the extended energy crisis of the 1970s soon demonstrated the need for unified energy organization and planning. The Department of Energy Organization Act brought the federal government's agencies and programs into a single agency—the Department of Energy (DOE), activated on October 1, 1977. DOE assumed the responsibilities of the Federal Energy Administration, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Federal Power Commission and parts and programs of several other agencies.
The Energy Department provided the framework for a comprehensive national energy plan by coordinating and administering the energy functions of the federal government. DOE undertook responsibility for long-term, high-risk research and development of energy technology, federal power marketing, energy conservation, the nuclear weapons program, energy regulatory programs and a central energy data collection and analysis program.
Over its two decade history, DOE has shifted its emphasis and focus as the needs of the nation have changed and as different administrations have imposed their own priorities. During the late 1970s, the department emphasized energy development and regulation, including early exploration into alternative energy sources. In the 1980s, nuclear weapons research, development and production took a priority as the Reagan administration sought to expand America’s strategic position vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. The 1980s also witnessed the turning of public opinion against nuclear power following accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. By the beginning of the 1990s, the Cold War was over, leading the department to focus on environmental clean up of the nuclear weapons complex, nonproliferation and stewardship of the nuclear stockpile, energy efficiency and conservation and technology transfer and industrial competitiveness. Research into nuclear power was greatly curtailed as well.
But with the election of George W. Bush in 2001, nuclear power gained an important ally, as did the oil industry, which spurred the Energy Department to focus on these two energy sectors. A key development in energy policy during the Bush presidency was the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (PDF). Within the 500-page law
was a broad collection of subsidies for nuclear and oil companies, as well as new initiatives designed to develop and promote a new generation of nuclear power reactors.
What it Does:
more
The Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for advancing the national, economic and energy security of the United States through the implementation of policies regarding nuclear power, fossil fuels and alternative energy sources. DOE promotes scientific and technological innovation in all of the aforementioned energy sectors and is charged with the environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex. A key duty of DOE is the formulation and implementation of the National Energy Policy. This comprehensive and wide ranging document covers energy challenges facing the US (PDF); impacts of high energy prices (PDF); protecting America’s environment (PDF); increasing energy conservation and efficiency (PDF); increasing domestic energy supplies (PDF); increasing America’s use of Renewable and Alternative Energy; America’s energy infrastructure (PDF); and enhancing national energy security and international relations (PDF).
Key DOE offices:
Nuclear Power and Weapons and Their Consequences
Office of Nuclear Energy
NE is the lead agency within DOE charged with promoting and developing nuclear power. NE helps spearhead new nuclear energy generation technologies, including plans to develop proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel that can maximize energy from other nuclear fuel. The office also maintains and enhances the national nuclear technology infrastructure and manages research laboratories and radiological facilities. The programs funded by NE are designed to develop new nuclear reactors that will help diversify the domestic energy supply through public-private partnerships.
National Nuclear Security Administration
NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within DOE that is responsible for overseeing the nation’s nuclear weapons complex. Using private contractors to run day-to-day operations, NNSA manages highly-classified research laboratories and nuclear defense facilities that maintain the stockpile of nuclear weapons as well as provide the propulsion systems for the US Navy’s nuclear fleet. Born out of controversy, NNSA has struggled since its creation in 2000 to move past the mistakes of the Energy Department that led Congress to establish this new agency. Security failures involving foreign espionage prompted the administration of President Bill Clinton and Congress to reorganize DOE and entrust NNSA with the duty of taking care of the nation’s post-Cold War arsenal of nuclear weapons. NNSA, however, has repeatedly been criticized for its own lapses in security and other blunders.
Office of Environmental Management
EM is responsible for overseeing the cleanup of the nation’s nuclear weapons complex. Representing a leftover from the Cold War, vast amounts of radioactive and toxic waste and contamination are spread throughout nuclear weapons facilities around the country, requiring long-term efforts involving environmental restoration, waste management, technology development and land reuse by EM. Two years ago EM suffered from a “going out of business” climate, thanks to its successful efforts in completing 80% of its original projects. But with considerable work still remaining at several large sites, EM’s state of operations became a cause for concern among observers and analysts, prompting a leadership change for the office.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
Managed by the Office of Environmental Management, the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund supports the cleanup of some of the nation’s most contaminated areas. The polluted sites are all former production facilities used during the Cold War to supply enriched uranium for nuclear warheads and commercial nuclear reactors. Located in Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio, the plants encompass more than 30 million square feet of floor space, miles of interconnecting pipes and thousands of acres of land that are contaminated with radioactive and hazardous materials. Cleanup of the sites isn’t expected to be completed until 2040 and cost upwards of $20 billion.
Office of Legacy Management
LM picks up where the Office of Environmental Management leaves off. Once clean up at former nuclear weapons facilities is completed by EM, LM takes over the location to manage any remaining environmental and human issues. LM currently manages more than 100 sites located throughout the country. The office is responsible for managing issues consisting of site monitoring, property management, grants to assist local communities affected by facility closure, records storage and pensions, health care and life insurance for former workers.
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
OCRWN is responsible for disposing of the nation’s civilian and military nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel. To fulfill this mission, OCRWM has focused its work since its creation in the early 1980s on one important project: Yucca Mountain. Located in southern Nevada, Yucca Mountain is being primed to become the nation’s first geologic repository for the long-term burial of nuclear waste that has been piling up around the country for the past six decades. According to OCRWM, the United States had accumulated 53,440 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors by 2005. In addition, military-related activities are expected to produce 22,000 canisters of solid radioactive waste for future disposal. Altogether, experts estimate that 135,000 tons of waste could end up being buried at the site.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
NWTRB is an independent federal agency that evaluates DOE’s technical and scientific work to establish Yucca Mountain as the sole repository for nuclear waste. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments of 1987, which established the board, the NWTRB has access to draft documents prepared by the DOE and its contractors so that it can conduct its review in “real time,” not after the fact. Twice a year, the board reports its conclusions and recommendations to Congress and to the Secretary of Energy and points out concerns from outside parties. It has no regulatory or implementing authority. The board consists of eleven members who are nominated by the National Academy of Sciences on the basis of expertise, which ranges from geochemistry to materials science to hydrology to transportation. Members are then appointed by the president and serve a four-year term.
Office of Health, Safety and Security
Created in 2006, HSS is responsible for overseeing worker safety and security matters at nuclear weapons facilities located across the country. HSS has been the subject of much controversy since its very beginning when Energy Department leaders decided to eliminate the previous office handling worker safety—the Office of Environment, Safety and Health—and turn those duties over to the newly formed HSS, which is led by a longtime security chief. Critics contended the move was designed to protect large private contractors at the expense of workers’ safety. Complaints of safety violations at nuclear weapons sites have continued to rise despite HSS commitment to protect workers.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
DNFSB is an independent government agency responsible for monitoring and advising DOE’s management of defense nuclear facilities, some of which today are being dismantled and cleaned up. Under its mandate from Congress, the board is charged with ensuring the implementation of DOE health and safety standards by energy officials and to issue advisory recommendations regarding work at facilities. The board also investigates operations or specific problems that arise at facilities that could adversely impact public health or safety and issues recommendations to address these problems. The DNFSB publishes unclassified reports with recommendations to correct problems at DOE facilities.
Renewable Energy
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
EERE researches and develops alternative fuels and helps promote the use of these fuels. The office is concerned with developing cleaner burning fuels, wind, hydro energy and other renewable energy sources in order to break the dependency the US has on foreign oil and other non-renewable resources. As part of its mission, EERE creates tax incentives for private businesses to develop new technologies that will assist in the overall goal of creating new and cleaner energy sources. According to EERE, “clean energy” is defined as energy-efficient technologies and practices that use less energy, and alternative power and delivery technologies that produce and transport power and heat more cleanly than conventional sources.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NREL is the main research center for developing renewable energy technologies and helping get those technologies into the marketplace. NREL’s main focus is to analyze and understand alternative energy technologies and the US electrical grid system support to reduce emissions and dependence on conventional fuels. NREL’s research focuses on thirteen areas for innovation in efficient and renewable energies. It is the principle research facility for the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Science and the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. NREL also provides technical assistance, energy planning and economic development for many organizations and industries in the US.
Power Marketing Administrations
PMAs are four federal agencies responsible for marketing hydropower—primarily excess power produced by federal dams and projects operated by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. The four federal PMAs, which market and distribute power to 60 million people in 34 states, are required to give preference to public utility districts and cooperatives. Each PMA is a distinct and self-contained entity within DOE, much like a wholly owned subsidiary of a corporation, and each is affected by its own unique regional issues and conditions. The four PMAs are the Bonneville Power Administration, Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration and the Western Area Power Administration.
Electricity, Oil, Gas and Coal
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FERC is the federal agency responsible for overseeing the electrical, natural gas and oil industries. It has jurisdiction over state-to-state electricity sales, wholesale electric rates, hydroelectric licensing, natural gas pricing and oil pipeline rates. It also reviews and authorizes liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, pipelines and non-federal hydropower projects. FERC is composed of up to five commissioners appointed by the President, with no more than three commissioners belonging to the same political party. Although an independent agency, FERC has proven susceptible to lobbying and political influence.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
OE is in charge of overseeing the availability of electricity throughout the country. OE makes sure the US electrical grid is working properly, both now and in the future, as new technologies become available to better provide electrical service to American homes, businesses and governments. OE funds research and development programs that explore new means of storing and delivering electricity. The office also works to identify any infrastructure problems that could potentially cause large-scale power outages, such as the 2003 blackout that affected the Midwest, Northeast and parts of Canada. Working with other federal agencies, OE also prepares for responding to any outages that might stem from terrorist-related attacks on the electric grid.
Office of Fossil Energy
FE is the federal government’s lead office for coal, natural gas and oil exploration and development. FE oversees approximately 600 research and development projects ranging from development of zero-emissions power plants to energy facilities that efficiently transform coal, biomass and other fuels into commercial products to new technologies that can extract oil from existing fields that currently is unreachable. FE is also responsible for managing the country’s underground supply of oil in case of emergencies, known as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and running three research labs that conduct fossil energy exploration.
Research
Office of Science
OS is one of the federal government’s largest distributors of research money for science exploration. As the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences, the office provides more than 40% of total funding in this area. It also oversees research programs in high-energy physics, nuclear physics, fusion energy sciences, basic energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences and computational science. In addition, the Office of Science is the federal government’s largest single financial supporter of materials and chemical sciences, and it supports programs involving climate change, geophysics, genomics, life sciences and science education. The Office of Science operates six interdisciplinary program offices: Advanced Scientific Computing Research; Basic Energy Sciences; Biological and Environmental Research; Fusion Energy Sciences; High Energy Physics; and Nuclear Physics.
Where Does the Money Go
more
The Department of Energy has spent $200 billion on contractors during this decade. More than 14,000 companies and public organizations, including some of the nation’s most prominent universities, defense contractors and engineering firms, were paid by the department for services that largely dealt with the operating of research labs and nuclear facilities owned by DOE.
Universities that run key research labs for the department’s Office of Science include University of California (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory); Iowa State University (Ames Laboratory); Princeton University (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory); Stanford University (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center); State University of New York (Brookhaven National Laboratory); University of Chicago (Argonne National Laboratory and Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory); University of Tennessee (Oak Ridge National Laboratory); and University of Wisconsin/Michigan State University (Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center).
Among defense contractors and engineering firms helping DOE clean up the legacy of nuclear weapons production is Fluor, an international engineering and construction firm, which helped clean up Fernald, a former uranium processing facility in Ohio, and the Hanford plutonium facility. Also performing work at Hanford are construction giants Bechtel (which has a stake in Savannah River cleanup and runs the Idaho and Pittsburgh Naval Reactors laboratories) and CH2M Hill, which is handling cleanup work at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and is involved with work at Savannah River.
Babcock & Wilcox, an engineering energy firm, has contracts for Savannah River and Pantex, the nation’s central facility for assembling and dismantling nuclear warheads.
Defense contractor Lockheed Martin runs the United States Energy Corporation on behalf of the Department of Energy, responsible for the day-to-day operations at the three gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) being dismantled and cleaned up. Lockheed Martin also runs the Schenectady Naval Reactors for the NNSA and Sandia National Laboratories for DOE.
The largest recipients of DOE contracts from 2000-2008 are as follows:
|
University of California System
|
$26,390,615,817
|
|
Lockheed Martin
|
$19,855,552,293
|
|
Bechtel
|
$14,420,899,250
|
|
Westinghouse Electric
|
$12,196,306,980
|
|
Fluor
|
$8,258,770,219
|
|
University of Texas-Battelle, LLC
|
$7,433,158,325
|
|
Battelle Memorial Institute
|
$7,015,644,421
|
|
Babcock & Wilcox
|
$5,575,203,026
|
|
University of Chicago
|
$5,409,042,277
|
Controversies:
more
Security at Nuclear Weapons Sites Lagging
After the 9/11 attacks, DOE changed its procedures and protocol for how the department prepares for a potential terrorist attack against the nation’s nuclear weapons facilities. In 2003, 2005 and 2006, Energy officials kept revising the “design basis threat” plan to better prepare for attacks. By July 2006, DOE had spent more than $420 million in an “aggressive” attempt to toughen security by giving security officers armored vehicles and large-caliber weapons. That same year DOE promised Congress that six of its 11 nuclear weapons sites would have upgraded security by 2008.
By the fall of 2007, DOE was nowhere near meeting this deadline, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office. Five of the six sites were still far from being ready to withstand a terrorist attack as defined by the design basis threat. DOE said it had put off work because of plans to consolidate plutonium at many of the sites into centralized locations.
Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA) blasted DOE for falling behind in its security preparations. “The department seems to think that the terrorist threat to its nuclear facilities is no more serious than a Halloween prank, as evidenced by its failure—more than six years after the 9/11 attacks—to do what it must to keep our stores of nuclear-weapons-grade materials secure,” Markey said in a statement.
Security Upgrades at Several Nuclear Sites Are Lagging, Auditors Find (by Matthew L. Wald, New York Times)
Energy Secretary Kills FutureGen
Shortly after President Bush announced in his 2008 State of the Union speech that he planned a big hike in energy research funding, the Department of Energy scuttled one of its most important initiatives: FutureGen. Lawmakers from Illinois were told by DOE Secretary Samuel Bodman that he was ready to pull the plug on the billion-dollar program that would have been a boon for downstate Illinois. Only a month earlier, energy officials announced that Mattoon, Illinois, won a battle with Texas to host FutureGen. A DOE spokeswoman said soaring cost projections and technological advances had led the department to rethink the project.
FutureGen was unveiled in 2003 as an inventive approach to energy generation that would use abundant US coal reserves, but trap most of the pollution associated with the burning of coal. The idea was to marry two proven technologies to gasify coal and then bury greenhouse gases produced by the process deep within the earth.
Several communities bid to host the project, with the finalists coming down to Mattoon and nearby Tuscola, Illinois, and two cities in Texas. To some in Illinois, the battle evoked memories of the 1988 showdown over a $4 billion federally funded particle accelerator. One week after Bush's father was elected president, his home state of Texas was awarded the Superconducting Super Collider Project, triggering charges from the losing side that politics had trumped science. The project was beset by cost overruns and was never finished.
Following the decision by Bodman, US Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) said he feared the scenario was playing out again with another Bush in the White House. “In 25 years on Capitol Hill, I have never witnessed such a cruel deception,” Durbin said. “When the city of Mattoon, Illinois, was chosen over possible locations in Texas, the secretary of energy set out to kill FutureGen.”
Energy Department backing out of Illinois-bound FutureGen project, officials say (by Bob Secter, Chicago Tribune)
Transmission Corridors
When Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a provision was included that allowed the federal government to force state, local and private landholders to sell property that was deemed necessary for the creation of new transmission lines and towers. The new electrical infrastructure would help form newly-created National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors pushed by the Bush administration to relieve congestion in key areas of the US electric grid.
The administration’s plan has been met with opposition from both Democrats and Republicans, environmental groups, historical societies and state and local governments. Traditionally, state, local and regional governments have primarily determined the routes of power lines. But under the corridors plan, the federal government would be able to bypass state and local opposition by allowing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)–not states–to be the final arbiter of where the lines are built. In October 2007, OE announced that the first two corridors would be built in the mid-Atlantic region that includes counties in 8 states and the District of Colombia and a Southwest corridor that covers Southern California and parts of Arizona.
Opponents have cited several concerns while opposing the building of the corridors. First, the new electrical towers would be sited through some of the most scenic and historic areas in the eastern half of the country. Officials from Virginia are concerned the mid-Atlantic corridor could impact 11 historic districts, one national historic landmark, 19 state or national historic sites, seven Civil War battlefields and the Appalachian Trail. Some of the most famous sites of the Civil War–Manassas, Antietem, and Gettysburg–lie within the Mid-Atlantic corridor.
The mid-Atlantic corridor would also undermine Northeast states’ efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by causing them to rely more on cheaper coal-fired power from the Midwest, rather than cleaner but higher cost electric generators fired by natural gas.
US Trumps States over Siting Power Lines (by Mark Clayton, Christian Science Monitor)
Mindlesser and Mindlesser (by Carl Pope, Huffington Post)
US Lists Places Where It Could Force New Power Lines (by Matthew L. Wald, New York Times)
Yucca Mountain
The 20-year effort to establish a repository for burying the nation’s nuclear waste has produced no shortage of controversies. Issues have arisen over the vulnerability of the site to earthquakes and whether nuclear waste might seep into ground water supplies and be carried to the Colorado River, which supplies water to Las Vegas, Los Angeles and other major metropolitan areas.
In June 2002, President Bush nominated Michael Corradini, a nuclear engineer from the University of Wisconsin who was an outspoken supporter of the nuclear power industry, to serve on an independent board of experts who oversee Yucca Mountain. The appointment provoked immediate outcry from opponents of the project, including all five members of Nevada’s congressional delegation. Corradini publicly endorsed Yucca Mountain, which the other members of the board had not done. Furthermore, Corradini continued to receive funding from the DOE for research on nuclear power even though he promised to stop. Corradini stepped down in January 2004.
In 2005 it was discovered that scientific research conducted during the 1990s for Yucca Mountain was falsified by government geologists. The controversy involved emails from three members of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) showing some data was fabricated related to water infiltration into Yucca Mountain tunnels. The revelation led to investigations by the FBI and the Inspector General for DOE and the Department of the Interior.
In April 2008, the Inspector General (IG) for DOE reported that DOE had hired a law firm with ties to nuclear power companies to represent the government’s effort to obtain a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to open Yucca Mountain. The firm, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, represented more than a dozen utilities suing the government for missing the 1998 deadline to take nuclear waste off industry hands.
Law firm's Yucca pact with DOE criticized: Inspectors say agency ignored conflicts, documentation (by Steve Tetreault, Review Journal)
No Criminal Charges in Yucca Mountain Email Science Scandal (Environment News Service)
Debate:
more
Energy Deregulation
In the mid 1990s, energy deregulation became one of the biggest political issues in the country after California decided to unravel its system of state controls over energy pricing. Proponents of deregulation contended that free-market trading would lower energy prices and bring a windfall to consumers. Federal energy officials, including those at FERC, defended market liberalization efforts, even after the California electricity crisis of 2000-2001 erupted and the likes of Enron were exposed as economic opportunists who exploited the deregulated energy market. Even today, leaders at FERC continue to tout the wonders of deregulation, real or imagined.
For opponents of deregulation, including many public interest organizations, the dismantling of government controls over the energy market was a huge mistake. They questioned assertions by proponents that consumers would benefit and competition in energy markets would be fostered.
Pro
Energy deregulation: Is it friend or enemy? (by Thomas A. Fogarty and Edward Iwata, USA Today)
Deregulation is here to stay, FERC chief says (by Elizabeth Souder, Dallas Morning News)
Panelists maintain support of energy deregulation, criticize Gov. Davis (by Etienne Benson, Stanford University Report)
What California Must Do (by former California Gov. Pete Wilson, Hoover Digest)
Con
Public Citizen Leads Consumer Advocates’ Challenge to FERC’s Illegal Deregulation of Electricity Rates (Public Citizen)
Suggested Reforms:
more
DOE Counterintelligence Efforts Need Improvement
Serious lapses in security and counterintelligence at the Department of Energy during the 1990s resulted in Congress creating the National Nuclear Security Administration to oversee DOE’s national security-related programs, including nuclear weapons labs. NNSA was given its own Office of Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence, while DOE continued to operate its Office of Counterintelligence. Some studies have questioned the effectiveness of both NNSA and DOE maintaining their own counterintelligence (CI) operations to combat foreign espionage. Several alternative organizational approaches have been proposed, including the following:
· Have DOE merge its Office of Intelligence and Office of Counterintelligence together and have that new entity absorb NNSA’s CI program. Proponents assert that consolidation would improve command, control and communication. Opponents argue that consolidation would dilute the focus on counterintelligence at DOE’s weapons labs.
· Consolidate the DOE and NNSA CI programs under the control of the NNSA administrator. Proponents argue that a semi-autonomous agency such as NNSA, by virtue of its independence, is better able to implement CI measures than is DOE. Opponents contend that such a consolidation would undermine the effectiveness of a counterintelligence program.
· Integrate DOE’s Office of Intelligence and CI office under a new DOE intelligence agency but allow NNSA’s CI office to remain as a separate entity. Proponents argue that such an approach would not eliminate the current bifurcated structure, but would enhance overall communication and coordination between the two existing programs. Opponents counter that only way to resolve coordination and communication problems is to consolidate the two CI programs within DOE.
· Completely separate the DOE and NNSA counterintelligence programs. Proponents suggest that such an approach would clarify the chain of command. Opponents assert that separation could further undermine coordination and communication.
- Table of Contents
- Overview
- History
- What it Does
- Where Does the Money Go
- Controversies
- Debate
- Suggested Reforms
- Former Directors
- Comments
- Leave a Comment
Founded: 1977
Annual Budget: $23.8 billion
Employees: 15,000
Official Website: http://www.energy.gov/
Department of Energy
Comments