The Mission of the U.S. Department of Energy

Yesterday the New York Times published the op-ed, "A Nuclear Waste," by Stephanie Cooke. Cooke posits that the government's new dedication to clean and efficient energy would be far better served by divorcing the Department of Energy from all things nuclear. As she says,

if Mr. Chu [Secretary of Energy] wishes to avoid getting dragged down by the nuclear undertow, the Energy Department must be relieved of duties that aren’t related to energy.

Ms. Cooke is correct in noting that many of DOE's responsibilities supercede the mere production of nuclear energy. In fact, DOE also houses the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), not to be confused with the NSA, National Security Agency. The mission of NNSA is to:

Strengthen national security through the military application of nuclear energy and by reducing the global threat from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction

Ms. Cooke rightly points out that only about 15% of the Department's annual budget of roughly $27 Billion is allocated to energy projects outside of NNSA. Therefore, she argues, it is fundamentally unequipped to focus it's efforts on developing solutions to the energy problems of the 21st century. She urges that NNSA either be transformed into a stand-alone agency or put under the management of the Defense Department.

There are several points to argue with Ms. Cooke. First, the proportion of the budget spent on NNSA is not dependent upon DOE itself, but on congress. Activists should recognize that nuclear stewardship is a necessity for this country, and rather than trying to cut that entirely, they should focus on increasing other energy funding. The two are not mutually exclusive whatsoever. Thus, it is perhaps more recommendable that DOE expand rather than contract.

Secondly, as to why sending NNSA to DOD is a horrible idea. Most of the Department of Energy's work is not centered in Washington, but at its National Laboratories. These labs work on every topic from nuclear weapons to solar panels. Transferring them to the Department of Defense would be deleterious to their non-defense work, precisely that which Ms. Cooke is trying to expand. On top of that, DOD does not have the best record of maintaining control over weapons and weapons components, the Air Force recent record being a case in point. Finally, there is the argument that ownership and custodianship of nuclear weapons should be in purely civilian hands and that many of the foreign counterparts with whom NNSA does much of its work would feel more comfortable cooperating with DOE than with DOD. These are not small matters.

Ms. Cooke is correct: the United States and the Department of Energy need to step up their work on clean and efficient energy. This should not come, however, at the expense of our nuclear work or the national labs. In the 21st century, the Department of Energy, once threatened with extinction by Ronald Reagan, must, in fact, rise to the importance and prestige of the Departments of State and Defense. Only then will it be equipped to lead the country into a greener era.