What GAO Found The cost of Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) is generally higher for federal agencies than the cost of gas vehicles, largely due to higher acquisition and monthly lease payments. However, peer-reviewed studies GAO reviewed found that ZEVs offer environmental benefits and may offer reduced maintenance costs. Agency officials GAO spoke with described gas vehicles as more flexible and convenient. In fiscal year 2023, 11 selected agencies in GAO's review were acquiring mostly gas vehicles for their fleets. Officials from most selected agencies told GAO they believe that their ability to meet the ZEV acquisition goals established by Executive Order 14057 will depend on factors outside their control, including the availability of ZEVs that match their mission needs. Agencies did not meet their combined self-set targets for fiscal year 2023 to acquire almost 9,500 light-duty ZEVs through the General Services Administration (GSA). Instead, they acquired about 60 percent of this combined target (see fig.). Agencies' Combined Light-Duty Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) Orders Compared with Targets and Gas Vehicle Orders, Fiscal Year 2023 Three federal agencies are considered the main “facilitating agencies” for the ZEV transition—the Council on Environmental Quality, the Department of Energy (Energy) and GSA. GAO found that these three agencies have various collaboration and other efforts to facilitate the ZEV transition. For example, their efforts aimed at helping to foster collaboration and learning among other federal agencies include establishing multiple working groups and hosting an annual training conference. The three agencies also are collecting data and feedback to improve their assistance to federal agencies. For example, Energy updated a ZEV acquisition decision-making tool to allow for multiyear planning based on federal agency user feedback. Why GAO Did This Study Executive Order 14057, issued in December 2021, requires that (1) affected agencies' acquisitions of light-duty vehicles (e.g., sedans, smaller sport utility vehicles, and smaller pickup trucks) must be ZEVs by the end of fiscal year 2027 and (2) all vehicle acquisitions must be ZEVs by 2035. The James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 includes a provision for GAO to review how the costs and benefits of operating and maintaining electric vehicles in the federal fleet compare with those of operating and maintaining gas vehicles. Among other objectives, this report describes (1) how the primary costs and expected benefits of ZEVs compare with gas vehicles in the federal fleet, (2) the types of vehicles that federal agencies acquired and the factors that selected agencies reported would influence whether they can meet the ZEV acquisition goals, and (3) the facilitating agencies' efforts to make progress toward ZEV goals. GAO reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and GSA vehicle acquisition data; and interviewed a selection of industry stakeholders and officials at 11 federal agencies. GAO selected a mix of agencies with different fleet characteristics, such as differing fleet sizes and some with law enforcement missions. GAO also reviewed documentation on agencies' efforts to facilitate progress toward ZEV goals and assessed these efforts using selected key performance management and leading interagency collaboration practices. For more information, contact David Marroni at (202) 512-2834 or marronid@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) uses several processes to manage its nuclear weapon acquisition programs. These processes include the Phase X and Phase 6.X processes, which provide a framework to coordinate NNSA's activities with those of the Department of Defense (DOD). NNSA also uses an internal process—called the product realization process—whereby an NNSA program office leads each program while multiple contractor teams of experts from NNSA's laboratories and production sites manage technical work. NNSA's acquisition processes can be organized into three phases: (1) initiation, which explores options and early designs; (2) development, which covers the design, testing, and evaluation of technologies and the maturing of production processes; and (3) production. Within these phases, NNSA has established numerous requirements that its programs must follow regarding, among other things, the establishment of cost and schedule baselines and the assessment of technology readiness. However, NNSA has not documented, in a formal or comprehensive manner, the process that its programs must follow to identify which technologies are critical technologies—that is, technologies critical to meeting a system's operational requirements that are new or novel or are used in a new or novel way. By more formally and comprehensively documenting its process, NNSA may help ensure that its nuclear weapon programs do not waste valuable funding and schedule resources. NNSA programs face several challenges in managing nuclear weapons acquisitions, including in maturing technologies, producing or procuring components, and overseeing contractors. For example, according to NNSA officials, it is difficult to estimate how long it will take to mature technologies to a manufacturing-ready state. As a result, NNSA's programs have had difficulty reaching technology readiness milestones. Specifically, of the technologies tracked by NNSA's Office of Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation in the two NNSA programs for which data were available and which had reached the development phase, a majority had not reached NNSA's minimum required readiness level for critical technologies by the start of that phase (see table). Number of Technologies in Nuclear Weapon Acquisition Programs Reaching NNSA's Technology Readiness Milestone at the Start of Development Phase Acquisition program Number of technologies Number of technologies meeting NNSA's readiness milestone for critical technologies B61-12 bomb 37 12 W80-4 warhead 42 5 Source: GAO analysis of National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) Office of Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation information. │ GAO-25-106048 Partly to address this challenge, NNSA established an office in 2019 to perform early stage research and development activities to advance technologies to a higher level of readiness before passing them on to nuclear weapon acquisition programs for further development. Why GAO Did This Study The United States is investing tens of billions of dollars in nuclear weapon acquisition programs to modernize aging nuclear weapons. NNSA is currently managing seven such programs, in coordination with DOD. Two Senate Armed Services Committee reports include provisions for GAO to review NNSA's management of its nuclear weapon acquisition programs, as well as the status of these programs biennially. This report assesses (1) the processes NNSA uses for managing these programs and (2) the challenges NNSA faces. The report also includes individual assessments of the five NNSA nuclear weapon acquisition programs under way at the start of GAO's review. GAO reviewed NNSA documentation and directives on agency processes, program cost and schedule baselines, and design and technology issues. GAO assessed performance in these areas using criteria in NNSA directives, as well as criteria from GAO's Technology Readiness Assessment Guide. GAO also visited NNSA sites and interviewed agency officials and contractors about challenges.

What GAO Found The Opioid Response grant programs—State Opioid Response (SOR) grants and Tribal Opioid Response (TOR) grants—help address the opioid crisis by funding prevention, harm reduction, treatment, and recovery support services. SOR grants are available to states, D.C., and U.S. territories; TOR grants are available to federally recognized Tribes and tribal organizations. Since fiscal year 2018, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has awarded about $8.1 billion in SOR grants and $307.5 million in TOR grants nationwide. SAMHSA allocates funding based on factors such as overdose death rates, and recently revised its allocation to better ensure funding goes to recipients with the greatest need. State and Tribal Opioid Response Grant Funding, Fiscal Years 2018-2023 Selected SOR recipients reported using grant funding for a variety of services, adapted to support their specific needs. States generally supported treatment for opioid use disorders, and most provided services not covered by other payers, such as transportation. Selected TOR recipients reported using funds primarily to support prevention and harm reduction efforts, such as community education. SAMHSA collects information on proposed subrecipients, which are organizations recipients anticipate will provide grant-funded services. However, proposed subrecipients are subject to change, and SAMHSA does not collect information about the actual subrecipients once awards are made. SAMHSA officials said that collecting such information could help with efforts to improve the programs. They are determining how to address a new statutory requirement to collect and report information on the “ultimate recipients” of the Opioid Response grants. As of October 2024, the agency had not completed, documented, or implemented a plan for doing so. SAMHSA has taken steps to address some challenges raised by grant recipients, but other challenges remain. For example, some grant recipients reported challenges obtaining data on services and results of other grant recipients. Obtaining these data would help grant recipients have additional information to use to help improve the services they offer. SAMHSA developed a data sharing strategy but has not determined specific details and time frames. Implementing such a plan would better position SAMHSA to improve how funds are used. In addition, five tribal recipients reported that grant-related administrative challenges contribute to some Tribes not participating or not making full use of TOR. Two executive orders direct agencies to address administrative burdens for Tribes to the extent practical and permitted by law. However, SAMHSA has not assessed whether there are permissible ways under the orders to help reduce such administrative burdens, which could help to allow additional Tribes to benefit from TOR funding. Why GAO Did This Study The misuse of opioids has been a long-standing problem in the U.S., representing a serious risk to public health. Opioid-related overdoses accounted for about three-quarters of the estimated 96,801 drug overdose deaths in the 12-month period ending in June 2024. SAMHSA leads federal public health efforts to address the opioid crisis, including administering the Opioid Response grant programs. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, includes a provision for GAO to review the Opioid Response grant programs. In this report, GAO examines the allocation and use of grant funds, the information SAMHSA collects on grant subrecipients, and how SAMHSA has addressed any challenges with the use of the grant funds. GAO reviewed relevant SAMHSA funding, allocation, and other documents, and interviewed SAMHSA officials. GAO also interviewed and reviewed information from 20 grant recipients (10 states, one territory, and nine Tribes or tribal consortia) selected to reflect variation in grant funding type (state or tribal) and amount changes, overdose deaths, and geography.

What GAO Found The U.S. Constitution requires each state's governor to issue written orders for special elections to fill vacancies in the U.S. House of Representatives (House). Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, a federal law was enacted in 2005 that generally requires states to hold special elections within 49 days of the Speaker of the House announcing that there are more than 100 vacancies in the House. Under the statute, this is referred to as "extraordinary circumstances." While almost all states have laws for holding special elections to fill House vacancies in general, GAO identified nine states that have laws for holding such elections in extraordinary circumstances, consistent with the federal law. The laws in these states adopt aspects of the federal law, including those related to the 49-day time frame, although most of them do not adopt all the law's requirements. The other 41 states do not have laws that adopt aspects of the federal law, and their laws for holding special elections to fill House vacancies vary in the types of timing provisions they contain. Examples of the timing provisions for holding such elections include specifying the number of days within which states are required to hold the election or giving the governor discretion to order an election within a specific time frame. In the case of extraordinary circumstances, states must follow the provisions of the federal law regardless of whether their laws adopt aspects of that law. GAO surveyed state election officials in all 50 states to obtain their perspectives on holding special elections consistent with the federal law. Nineteen of the 33 officials who responded reported that they were not aware of the federal law prior to hearing about GAO's study. In addition, officials identified a range of challenges related to holding special elections consistent with the federal law. For example, officials reported that selecting candidates through primary elections in time to hold a special election within the 49-day time frame in the law would be difficult. Examples of Challenges that States Might Face in Holding Special Elections in Extraordinary Circumstances State election officials reported that the challenges they identified could affect the accuracy and availability of ballots, pamphlets, and other voting materials; public perceptions of the election; and voting access, such as whether voters have sufficient time to request absentee ballots. However, a number of officials noted that they believed they could hold special elections consistent with the federal law. Additionally, officials identified state practices that might help them hold such elections. For example, officials reported that in some cases states assign responsibility for candidate selection to political parties and noted that this could be done relatively quickly under a special election. Why GAO Did This Study GAO was asked to examine state capabilities to hold special elections to fill House vacancies in extraordinary circumstances, consistent with the federal law. This report provides information on (1) state laws related to holding special elections to fill House vacancies and (2) the perspectives of state election officials on the capabilities of, and challenges facing, states in holding special elections to fill House vacancies consistent with the federal law. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed laws in all 50 states related to holding special elections to fill House vacancies. In addition, GAO conducted a web survey of state election officials in all 50 states to obtain their perspectives on holding special elections consistent with the federal law. To encourage responses, GAO followed up multiple times with non-respondents by both phone and email. Thirty-three states responded to the survey. GAO also reviewed relevant reports and interviewed subject matter experts from four organizations, selected based on their work on this topic. For more information, contact Rebecca Gambler, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov;