Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)" in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Clean Energy Standard: Potential Qualifying Energy Sources [May 3, 2011]
"A clean energy standard (CES) has been identified as one possible legislative option to encourage a more diverse domestic electricity portfolio. A CES could require certain electricity providers to obtain a portion of their electricity from qualifying clean energy sources. A CES is broader than a renewable energy standard (RES), including 'clean' energy sources along with renewable energy sources. The RES has been a topic of legislative attention since at least the 105th Congress. Some assert that a CES could lead to economic growth, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and secure U.S. leadership in clean energy technology. Others argue that a CES could lead to higher electricity prices, necessitate additional financial investment in grid infrastructure, and - in some cases - depend on energy technologies that are not yet established for widespread commercial scale use. [...] Many questions will need to be answered if a CES is established. How much clean electricity can be generated from each qualifying energy source, given the proposed CES time frame? Should a carbon accounting parameter be assigned to each source? Will a time come when some resources (e.g., wind, solar) used to generate clean electricity cease to be considered a 'free' resource? Should energy efficiency be included in a CES, and if so, how should it be included? How would a CES interact with state renewable electricity requirements? Who would assume the costs of new transmission capacity?"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin); Bracmort, Kelsi; Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2011-05-03
-
U.S. Renewable Electricity: How Does Wind Generation Impact Competitive Power Markets? [November 7, 2012]
"This report analyzes the impacts of wind generation on competitive power markets, including financial and economic impacts on electric power generators. Overall, the goal of this report is to provide context for several electricity market concepts that are relevant to understanding the economic effects of wind power generation. Additionally, this report addresses three specific questions about the market interaction of wind power and electric power generators: (1) How might wind power affect wholesale market clearing prices? (2) Does wind power contribute to negative wholesale power price events within competitive electric power markets? and (3) Does wind power impact electric system reliability? This report focuses on data and information available for competitive electricity markets that are managed by a regional transmission operator (RTO) or independent system operator (ISO). Specific information for three RTO/ISO organizations is provided in this report: (1) Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO), (2) PJM, and (3) Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). These three RTOs were selected for the analysis in an effort to limit the scope of this report. Furthermore, these RTOs are commonly cited as markets that are being affected by wind power generation. As a result, there is no discussion of wind power market impacts within cost-of-service, vertically integrated electricity markets that are common in the West and Southeast regions of the United States, nor is there any discussion of how wind power is managed by federally owned transmission system operators such as the Bonneville Power Administration."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2012-11-07
-
U.S. Renewable Electricity: How Does the Production Tax Credit (PTC) Impact Wind Markets? [October 10, 2012]
"U.S. wind projects that use large turbines-greater than 100 kilowatts (kW)-are eligible to receive federal tax incentives in the form of production tax credits (PTC) and accelerated depreciation. Originally established in 1992, the PTC has played a role in the evolution and growth of the U.S. wind industry. Under existing law, wind projects placed in service on or after January 1, 2013, will not be eligible to receive the PTC incentive. Industry proponents are advocating for an extension of PTC availability, citing employment, economic development, and other considerations as justification for the extension. While a PTC extension may improve the prospects for U.S. wind development and manufacturing next year and beyond, the wind industry is influenced by a number of other factors. It is uncertain how the near- or long-term availability of the PTC incentive-in isolation of changes to other market factors-would either grow or sustain current wind development and manufacturing levels. [...] This report examines how the production tax credit and its impending expiration impact the wind industry, and how other factors influence market demand for wind power projects."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2012-10-10
-
Prospects for Coal in Electric Power and Industry [February 4, 2013]
"For most of the twentieth century, the primary use of coal in the United States was for electric power generation, and for most of the history of power generation in the United States, coal has been the dominant fuel used to produce electricity. Even as recently as 2011, coal was the fuel used for almost 42% of power generation in the United States accounting for 93% of coal use. Industrial uses represented the remaining 7%. However, in April 2012, coal's share of the power generation market dropped to about 32% (according to Energy Information Administration statistics), equal to that of natural gas. Coal was the fuel of choice because of its availability and the relatively low cost of producing electricity in large, coal-burning power plants which took advantage of coal's low-priced, high energy content to employ economies of scale in steam-electric production. However, coal use for power generation seems to be on the decline, and the magnitude of coal's role for power generation is in question. Two major reasons are generally seen as being responsible: the expectation of a dramatic rise in natural gas supplies, and the impact of environmental regulations on an aging base of coal-fired power plants."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Campbell, Richard J.; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin); Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2013-02-04
-
U.S. Renewable Electricity Generation: Resources and Challenges [August 5, 2011]
"The United States faces important decisions about future energy supply and use. A key question is how renewable energy resources might be used to meet U.S. energy needs in general, and to meet U.S. electricity needs specifically. Renewable energy sources are typically used for three general types of applications: electricity generation, biofuels/bioproducts, and heating/cooling. Each application uses different technologies to convert renewable energy sources into usable products. The literature on renewable energy resources, conversion technologies for different applications, and economics is massive. This report focuses on electricity generation from renewable energy sources. In 2010, renewable sources of energy were used to produce almost 11% (7% from hydropower and 4% from other renewables) of the 4 million gigawatthours of electricity generated in the United States. This report provides a summary of U.S. electricity generation potential from wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, ocean-hydrokinetic, and biomass sources of renewable energy. The focus of this report is twofold: (1) provide an assessment of U.S. renewable electricity generation potential and how renewables might satisfy electric power sector demand, and (2) discuss challenges, issues, and barriers that might limit renewable electricity generation deployment."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy); Whitney, Gene
2011-08-05
-
Loan Guarantees for Clean Energy Technologies: Goals, Concerns, and Policy Options [January 17, 2012]
From the Document: "Government guaranteed debt is a financial tool that has been used to support a number of federal policy objectives: home ownership, higher education, and small business development, among others. Loan guarantees for new energy technologies date back to the mid-1970s, when rapidly rising energy prices motivated the development of alternative, and renewable, sources of energy. Recently, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a loan guarantee program for innovative clean energy technologies (nuclear, clean coal, renewables) commonly known as Section 1703. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 created Section 1705, a temporary loan guarantee program focused on deployment of renewable energy technologies and projects. [...] The high-risk nature of clean energy projects, however, raises some concerns about the use of loan guarantees as a mechanism to encourage the deployment of new technologies. First, loan repayment demands cash flow from development stage companies at a time when they may already have high cash flow requirements, so loan repayment obligations could actually increase the risk of default for certain projects. Second, at a project level, the government's potential return is not commensurate with the risk being assumed. Third, loan guarantees for clean energy technologies are essentially long-term commitments in a dynamic and evolving marketplace. As a result, technologies supported today could be obsolete in less than a decade, thereby increasing the risk of loan default. Finally, federally managed loan guarantee programs may be subject to certain pressures that could result in less-than-optimal decision making."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2012-01-17
-
U.S. Renewable Electricity: How Does the Production Tax Credit (PTC) Impact Wind Markets? [June 20, 2012]
"U.S. wind projects that use large turbines-greater than 100 kilowatts (kW)-are eligible to receive federal tax incentives in the form of production tax credits (PTC) and accelerated depreciation. Originally established in 1992, the PTC has played a role in the evolution and growth of the U.S. wind industry. Under existing law, wind projects placed in service on or after January 1, 2013, will not be eligible to receive the PTC incentive. Industry proponents are advocating for an extension of PTC availability, citing employment, economic development, and other considerations as justification for the extension. While a PTC extension may improve the prospects for U.S. wind development and manufacturing next year and beyond, the wind industry is influenced by a number of other factors. It is uncertain how the near- or long-term availability of the PTC incentive-in isolation of changes to other market factors-would either grow or sustain current wind development and manufacturing levels. [...] This report examines how the production tax credit and its impending expiration impact the wind industry, and how other factors influence market demand for wind power projects."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2012-06-20
-
Clean Energy Standard: Summary and Analysis of S. 2146 [May 9, 2012]
"Policymakers have several options when considering legislation that would result in reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the U.S. electricity sector. Some policy options might include a carbon tax or a carbon cap-and-trade approach. A federal clean energy standard (CES), such as that proposed in the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012 (S. 2146), is an alternative approach that requires certain utility companies to provide a prescribed amount of electricity from qualified clean energy sources based on a percentage of each utility company's annual electricity sales to consumers. Several CES policies have been proposed in the past, although none have become law. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the electric power sector represents approximately 41% of U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions. The remaining 59% of CO2 emissions are from the transportation (33%) and buildings/infrastructure (26%) sectors. Unlike previous carbon reduction policy proposals, S. 2146 is focused only on CO2 emission reductions in the U.S. electric power sector. The concept of a U.S. clean energy standard was proposed by President Barack Obama in his 2011 State of the Union address, and the White House subsequently published a proposed framework for a federal CES. In March of 2011, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee (SENR) released a Clean Energy Standard white paper that solicited feedback on several CES policy design questions. On March 1, 2012, the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012 (S. 2146) was introduced in the Senate. This report provides a summary and analysis of the CES proposed in S. 2146."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2012-05-09
-
European Union Wind and Solar Electricity Policies: Overview and Considerations [August 7, 2013]
"The subject matter covered within this report is European Union (EU) renewable electricity generation--specifically onshore wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity--and does not include discussion about the broader renewable energy sector (i.e., alternative transportation fuels, heating/cooling, and energy efficiency). Onshore wind and solar PV were selected as they have experienced the largest amounts of deployment in the EU to date. European Union energy policy is complex and multi-dimensional. Furthermore, each of the 28 member countries has a unique set of policies and incentives that add further complexity to the policy structure. It is beyond the scope of this report to provide a comprehensive overview and analysis of all energy polices at the EU and member-country level. Rather, the scope of this report is designed to focus on certain aspects of energy policy at the EU-level and for three specific countries--Germany, Spain, and Italy. However, other EU members have implemented renewable electricity support policies with various designs and objectives. Finally, renewable electricity policies for three specific EU member countries provide a country-level comparison of the unique policy types, implementation strategies, and financial mechanics used by different EU members. Germany, Spain, and Italy were selected for further review based on the amount of onshore wind and solar PV deployment in these countries."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2013-08-07
-
Production Tax Credit Incentives for Renewable Electricity: Financial Comparison of Selected Policy Options [December 20, 2013]
"Under current law, the production tax credit (PTC) incentive for renewable electricity will expire at the end of 2013. Generally, congressional debate about the PTC falls within a spectrum of options. At one end of the spectrum, proposals have been made to eliminate the incentive. At the other end of the spectrum, proposals include making the PTC permanent. Other proposals, such as temporarily extending and phasing out the PTC over time, fall within these two extremes. This report examines selected alternatives for phasing out PTC incentives. [...] In December 2012, the American Wind Energy Association published a PTC phase out proposal that would result in the PTC being eliminated by 2019. Debate about energy subsidies is multi-faceted. Different energy sources receive different types of subsidy support over varying time periods. Comparing tax incentives and subsidies across all energy types is beyond the scope of this report. This report examines and considers possible options for renewable electricity PTCs, with a focus on phase-out alternatives. Generally, the goal of a tax credit phase-out approach is to reduce the incentive value over a period of time in order to encourage industry to reduce costs so that certain renewable power technologies might compete on an unsubsidized basis. [...] A detailed examination and analysis of this 'market-linked' phase-out approach is included in this report. Each phase-out approach differs in terms of complexity, implementation, and potential impacts to renewable electricity deployment."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2013-12-20
-
U.S. Crude Oil Export Policy: Background and Considerations [March 26, 2014]
"During an era of oil price controls and following the 1973 Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries oil embargo, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), which directs the President 'to promulgate a rule prohibiting the export of crude oil' produced in the United States. Crude oil export restrictions are codified in the Export Administration Regulations administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)--a Commerce Department agency. The President has some powers to allow certain crude oil exports if an exemption is determined to be in the national interest. In 2009, a decades-long U.S. oil production decline was reversed due to the application of advanced drilling and extraction technologies to produce tight oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 reference case projects that total U.S. crude production will be 9.6 million barrels per day by 2019--up from 7.7 million in 2013. Nearly all of this growth is expected to come from tight oil production. This anticipated growth is resulting in calls to lift or otherwise ease U.S. crude oil export restrictions. However, crude oil imports are projected to range from 6 million to nearly 8 million barrels per day for the period out to 2040. This apparent disconnect between import needs and the desire to export can be explained when considering the following: (1) geographic location of tight oil, (2) tight oil quality characteristics, (3) refinery configurations, (4) oil transportation network, and (5) price discounts in different regions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy); Pirog, Robert L.; Vann, Adam . . .
2014-03-26
-
Powering Africa: Challenges of and U.S. Aid for Electrification in Africa [August 17, 2015]
"The largest infrastructure deficit in sub-Saharan Africa, a region mostly made up of low income developing countries, is in the power sector, according to the World Bank. Rates of access to electricity in Africa are very low by global standards, notably in rural areas. About 57% of Africans, or about 621 million people, lack access to electricity (also referred to as 'power' in this report). Whether measured in terms of generation and distribution capacity, electricity consumption, or security of supply, Africa's power sector delivers a fraction of the service needed or found elsewhere in the developing world. Power consumption is a tenth of that found elsewhere in the developing world, and per capita access is gradually falling, because new power infrastructure construction has not kept up with growing populations and electricity demands. The contrast between Africa and the developed world with respect to power capacities is particularly stark. Africa has a generation capacity of about 106 megawatts (MW) per million people, while that of the United States was about 3,320 megawatts MW per million people The lack of power constrains development in the region in multiple ways: It limits economic production, growth, and commerce; undermines human resource development and hinders improved quality of life potentials; and limits the quality of social services and public safety. It also spurs the use of alternative, often highly polluting biomass energy sources (e.g., wood and charcoal) for cooking and lighting. Estimates of African power requirements and the corresponding need for financing vary widely, but are invariably high. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) reports that about $15 to $20 billion in annual investment through 2030 may be needed to achieve universal access to electricity, a figure roughly in line with a 2012 International Energy Agency (IEA) estimate."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cook, Nicolas; Campbell, Richard J.; Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy) . . .
2015-08-17
-
U.S. Crude Oil Exports to International Destinations [April 6, 2016]
"On December 18, 2015, Congress passed H.R. 2029 [House Resolution]--the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016--which was enacted and became P.L. 114-113 [Public Law]. A provision contained in P.L. 114-113 repealed a 40-year prohibition on the export of crude oil produced in the United States. [...] Removing this prohibition and its associated restrictions provides producers, shippers, and traders with more options to market and sell crude oil to international markets when market conditions support such transactions. Prior to removing export restrictions, exemptions resulted in approximately 500,000 barrels per day of crude oil exported--nearly all to Canada--during 2015. Since the export prohibition was repealed, Energy Information Administration (EIA) data indicate that U.S. crude oil export volumes declined, although industry trade data indicate that crude oil has been exported to destinations that were previously not allowed and monthly export volumes to these international markets have increased steadily since the restrictions were removed."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2016-04-06
-
U.S. Crude Oil Export Policy: Background and Considerations [December 31, 2014]
"Congress may choose to consider crude oil export policy options that could range from maintaining existing restrictions to eliminating the prohibition on crude oil exports. During the 113th Congress, four bills were introduced that would have eliminated crude oil export restrictions: H.R. 4286, H.R. 4349, S. 2170, and H.R. 5814. Some Members of Congress have expressed the desire to maintain crude oil restrictions. However, maintaining restrictions might not prevent more crude-oil-like material from being exported, because varying interpretations of existing regulations may allow for more exports. The crude oil definition in the export regulations is open to interpretation and has many undefined terms that the industry may explore with the objective of determining the minimum amount of crude oil processing necessary that would result in an exportable product. It is not clear how broadly or narrowly BIS [Bureau of Industry and Security] might interpret existing laws and regulations. Finally, Congress may choose to explore other options between eliminating and maintaining restrictions. Examples may include allowing exports of lease condensate--an ultralight hydrocarbon that is typically produced with natural gas--allowing unrestricted exports to Mexico since exports to Canada are not restricted, allowing a certain type of crude (i.e., light/sweet) from a certain location (i.e., Texas) to be exported--much like the California heavy crude oil export exemption--or allowing crude oil exports for a limited time period since U.S. oil production growth is uncertain and may, according to the Energy Information Administration, peak in 2020."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy); Pirog, Robert L.; Vann, Adam . . .
2014-12-31
-
Cross-Border Energy Trade in North America: Present and Potential [January 30, 2017]
"The United States, Canada, and Mexico in many ways comprise one large, integrated market for energy commodities. Canada, for example, is the single largest foreign supplier of crude oil to the United States, and the United States is Canada's sole crude oil customer. Both Mexico and Canada are major buyers of petroleum products refined in the United States. A growing trade in natural gas produced in the United States is also increasingly important to the energy relationship among the three countries. Trade in the other energy commodities--electricity, natural gas liquids, and coal--is comparatively small, but regionally important. Altogether, the value of the energy trade between the United States and its North American neighbors exceeded $140 billion in 2015, with $100 billion in U.S. energy imports and over $40 billion in exports. The United States' energy trade relationships with Canada and Mexico are increasingly complex. They have been undergoing fundamental change in recent years--largely due to technological advancements in the petroleum and natural gas sectors creating new competition for energy supplies and new market interconnections."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Parfomak, Paul W.; Campbell, Richard J.; Pirog, Robert L. . . .
2017-01-30
-
United States and Saudi Arabia Energy Relations [November 19, 2018]
"Following the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at a Saudi Arabia consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, some Members of Congress have expressed interest in taking action against Saudi Arabia for its apparent role. The purpose of this In Focus is to provide a non-comprehensive overview of the U.S.-Saudi Arabia energy relationship that dates back to at least 1933, when Saudi Arabia granted an oil concession to Standard Oil Company of California (now Chevron). Since then, this relationship has witnessed the creation--founded by U.S. oil companies--of the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco), nationalization and ownership transfer of Aramco to Saudi Arabia (renamed Saudi Aramco), a Saudi-supported embargo of crude oil shipments to the United States, and various periods of energy cooperation. Today, the U.S.-Saudi energy relationship includes interests within three general categories: (1)energy trade, (2) business operations, and (3) global petroleum prices."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy); Pirog, Robert L.
2018-11-19
-
Financial Challenges of Operating Nuclear Power Plants in the United States [Updated December 14, 2016]
From the Document: "This report provides background on the evolution of nuclear power in the United States, discusses recent and announced plant closures, explains the economic conditions creating financial challenges for merchant nuclear power plants, and presents policy considerations associated with the future of existing nuclear power plants."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy); Holt, Mark
2016-12-14
-
Powering Africa: Challenges of and U.S. Aid for Electrification in Africa [September 14, 2015]
"The largest infrastructure deficit in sub-Saharan Africa, a region mostly made up of low income developing countries, is in the power sector, according to the World Bank. Rates of access to electricity in Africa are very low by global standards, notably in rural areas. About 57% of Africans, or about 621 million people, lack access to electricity (also referred to as 'power' in this report). Whether measured in terms of generation and distribution capacity, electricity consumption, or security of supply, Africa's power sector delivers a fraction of the service needed or found elsewhere in the developing world. Power consumption is a tenth of that found elsewhere in the developing world, and per capita access is gradually falling, because new power infrastructure construction has not kept up with growing populations and electricity demands. The contrast between Africa and the developed world with respect to power capacities is particularly stark. Africa has a generation capacity of about 106 megawatts (MW) per million people, while that of the United States was about 3,320 megawatts MW per million people."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cook, Nicolas; Campbell, Richard J.; Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy) . . .
2015-09-14
-
Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Recent Developments [Updated May 26, 2020]
From the Document: "Established through enacted legislation in 1975 (P.L. 94-163), the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR, 42 U.S.C. §6231 et seq.) was created to reduce the impact of petroleum supply disruptions and to carry out obligations under the International Energy Program (IEP, a multilateral treaty--25 UST 1685--that requires signatories to maintain emergency petroleum reserves). The SPR is authorized to hold up to 1 billion barrels of petroleum products. Physical storage capacity is currently 714 million barrels of crude oil and SPR inventories were 635 million barrels as of April 17, 2020. As U.S. net petroleum imports started declining in the mid-2000s, IEP reserve volume requirements declined as well. As a result, Congress began selling SPR crude oil to pay for other legislative priorities. Since 2015, Congress has enacted seven laws that mandate the sale of 271 million barrels of SPR crude during the period of fiscal year (FY) 2017 through FY2028. Additionally, Congress has authorized SPR oil sales up to $2 billion to pay for SPR facility modernization."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2020-05-26
-
Low Oil Prices May Trigger Certain Tax Benefits, but Not Others [May 11, 2020]
From the Document: "Benchmark crude oil prices--such as U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI)--have steeply declined since January 2020. Oil market oversupply, the result of COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] travel restrictions and increased global supply levels in March and April, has exerted downward pressure on prices. Although the duration of low oil prices is uncertain, price levels for the remainder of 2020 may largely be a function of demand recovery, supply adjustments, and return to a balanced market. Energy Information Administration (EIA) price forecasts, as of April 2020, indicate that WTI spot prices may average just over $29 per barrel during calendar year 2020, less than half the price at the beginning of the year. Some federal oil production tax incentives are triggered when a reference price of crude oil--estimated and published annually by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)--drops below a statutory oil price level. The reference price is an 'estimate of the annual average wellhead price per barrel for all domestic crude oil the price of which is not subject to regulation.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sherlock, Molly F.; Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2020-05-11
-
Low Oil Prices: Prospects for Global Oil Market Balance [Updated April 17, 2020]
From the Document: "Reduced travel, slowing economic activity, and petroleum-product demand suppression related to the COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] outbreak, combined with announced plans to increase crude oil supplies, created expectations of an imbalanced and significantly oversupplied near-term petroleum market. Oversupply expectations have contributed to oil prices declining nearly 60% since January. Some regional oil prices have been less than $10 per barrel. While low oil prices are generally positive for consumers, current price levels are causing financial stress for the U.S. oil sector and several policy options could be explored that might provide some degree of relief."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2020-04-17
-
Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Recent Developments [Updated May 12, 2020]
From the Document: "Established through enacted legislation in 1975 (P.L. 94-163), the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR, 42 U.S.C. §6231 et seq.) was created to reduce the impact of petroleum supply disruptions and to carry out obligations under the International Energy Program (IEP, a multilateral treaty--25 UST 1685--that requires signatories to maintain emergency petroleum reserves). The SPR is authorized to hold up to 1 billion barrels of petroleum products. Physical storage capacity is currently 714 million barrels of crude oil and SPR inventories were 635 million barrels as of April 17, 2020. As U.S. net petroleum imports started declining in the mid-2000s, IEP reserve volume requirements declined as well. As a result, Congress began selling SPR crude oil to pay for other legislative priorities. Since 2015, Congress has enacted seven laws that mandate the sale of 271 million barrels of SPR crude during the period of fiscal year (FY) 2017 through FY2028. Additionally, Congress has authorized SPR oil sales up to $2 billion to pay for SPR facility modernization. Steep and rapid oil price declines in early March motivated suspension of an FY2020 modernization sale. As oil market oversupply increased and prices continued declining, using the SPR to provide some degree of relief to the U.S. oil sector is one policy option that has been explored."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2020-05-12
-
Venezuela: Background and U.S. Relations [June 27, 2018]
"Venezuela remains in a deep political crisis under the authoritarian rule of President Nicolás Maduro of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). On May 20, 2018, Maduro defeated Henri Falcón, a former governor, in a presidential election boycotted by the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD) of opposition parties and dismissed by the United States, the European Union, and 18 Western Hemisphere countries as illegitimate. Maduro, who was narrowly elected in 2013 after the death of President Hugo Chávez (1999-2013), is unpopular. Nevertheless, he has used the courts, security forces, and electoral council to repress the opposition."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Seelke, Clare Ribando; Nelson, Rebecca M.; Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy) . . .
2018-06-27
-
Cross-Border Energy Trade in North America: Present and Potential [January 24, 2017]
"The United States, Canada, and Mexico in many ways comprise one large, integrated market for energy commodities. [...] Altogether, the value of the energy trade between the United States and its North American neighbors exceeded $140 billion in 2015, with over $100 billion in U.S. energy imports and over $40 billion in exports. The United States' energy trade relationships with Canada and Mexico are increasingly complex. They have been undergoing fundamental change in recent years--largely due to technological advancements in the petroleum and natural gas sectors creating new competition for energy supplies and new market interconnections. Consequently, while energy policies in one country have inevitably affected the others, their cross-cutting effects in the future are difficult to predict. Nonetheless, a review of the recent trade data highlights several key market developments. [...] To date, Congress has favored a growing North American energy partnership--but ensuring that this partnership continues to be as mutually beneficial as possible will likely remain a key oversight challenge for the next decades. Congress has been facing important policy questions in the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico energy contexts on several fronts, including the siting of major cross-border pipelines, increasing petroleum supplies from Canadian oil sands, exporting natural gas production from United States' shales, and meeting commitments to increase renewable energy supplies and reduce atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases. Legislative proposals in the 115th Congress could directly influence these developments."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Parfomak, Paul W.; Campbell, Richard J.; Pirog, Robert L. . . .
2017-01-24
-
U.S. Crude Oil Exports to International Destinations [January 30, 2017]
"On December 18, 2015, Congress passed H.R. 2029--the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016--which was signed into law as P.L. [Public Law] 114-113. A provision contained in P.L. 114-113 repealed a 40-year prohibition, with exceptions, on the export of crude oil produced in the United States. Removing this prohibition and its associated restrictions provides producers, shippers, and traders with options to market and sell crude oil internationally. Prior to the removal of export restrictions, exceptions resulted in approximately 500,000 barrels per day of crude oil exports--nearly all to Canada-- during 2015. Since the export prohibition was repealed, industry trade data indicate that crude oil has been exported to destinations that were previously not allowed. Monthly export volumes to these international markets have fluctuated but reached their highest levels in September 2016."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2017-01-30
-
U.S. Petroleum Trade with Venezuela: Financial and Economic Considerations Associated with Possible Sanctions [July 27, 2017]
"The political crisis in Venezuela is at a pivotal point 'See CRS Report R44841, Venezuela: Background and U.S. Policy.' President Nicolas Maduro is convening elections on July 30 for delegates to a constituent assembly to rewrite the country's constitution and possibly dismantle the legislative branch. On July 17, 2017, President Donald Trump issued a statement that declared that 'the United States will take strong and swift economic actions' if the assembly elections occur. Those actions reportedly could include sanctions on Venezuela's energy sector, which generates 95% of its export earnings. While there are humanitarian and political risks of implementing sanctions on Venezuela, this insight explores economic considerations of potential petroleum sector sanctions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy); Seelke, Clare Ribando
2017-07-27
-
OPEC and Non-OPEC Crude Oil Production Agreement: Compliance Status [May 17, 2017]
"Recently, the global oil market has been oversupplied. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), except for the third quarter of 2016, oil production exceeded consumption since the third quarter of 2014. As a result, commercial stocks of crude oil and petroleum liquids have been at five-year highs and there has been downward pressure on benchmark (e.g., West Texas Intermediate, or WTI, and Brent) crude oil prices […] OPEC's production decision and the resulting price declines were interpreted by some to be anti-competitive and a targeted effort to put price pressure on U.S. tight (shale) oil producers, which had steadily increased production since 2008 and contributed to the oversupply situation […] On November 30, 2016, in an effort to address low prices and global oversupply, OPEC announced an agreement (the 'Vienna Agreement') under which the organization would reduce crude oil production by 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd) from October 2016 levels for an initial six months starting January 2017. OPEC also indicated its plans to 'institutionalize a framework' with non-OPEC countries to manage crude oil production levels. On December 10, 2016, OPEC announced that a group of 11 countries had joined the Vienna Agreement and had committed to reduce oil production by 558,000 bpd."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2017-05-17
-
OPEC and Non-OPEC Crude Oil Production Agreement: Compliance Status [November 16, 2017]
"On November 30, 2016--in an effort to stabilize declining oil prices--the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) announced an agreement whereby 11 of the thenactive 13 members would reduce crude oil production by approximately 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd) for six months starting January 1, 2017. On December 10, 2016, OPEC announced that 11 non-OPEC countries, led by Russia, had joined the agreement by pledging to further reduce oil production by 558,000 bpd. This 'Declaration of Cooperation' to collectively reduce oil production by approximately 1.8 million bpd was extended for nine additional months and is currently in effect through March 31, 2018. [...] For the period January 2017 through September 2017, OPEC and non-OPEC countries party to the production agreement were, as a group, 98% compliant with the production target. [...] Generally, compliance with the 'Declaration of Cooperation' appears to have achieved the stated goals of normalizing the supply/demand balance as well as reducing global petroleum stocks. [...] On November 30, 2017, OPEC is to hold its 173rd meeting in Vienna, Austria. One agenda item being closely monitored by oil market analysts is a potential OPEC/non-OPEC decision to extend, enhance, or unwind the production agreement that is currently set to expire on March 31, 2018."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2017-11-16
-
OPEC and Non-OPEC Crude Oil Production Agreement: Compliance Status [April 26, 2018]
"On November 30, 2016-in an effort to stabilize declining oil prices-the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) announced an agreement whereby 11 of the then-active 13 members would reduce crude oil production by approximately 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd) for 6 months starting January 1, 2017. On December 10,
2016, OPEC announced that 11 non-OPEC countries, led by Russia, had joined the agreement by pledging to further reduce oil production by 558,000 bpd. This 'Declaration of Cooperation' to collectively reduce oil production by approximately 1.7 million bpd has been extended twice and is currently in effect through December 2018. [...] For the period January 2017 through March 2018, OPEC and non-OPEC countries party to the production agreement were, as a group, 112% compliant with the production targets. Generally, compliance with the Declaration of Cooperation appears to be achieving the stated goals of eliminating excess production as well as reducing global petroleum stocks. [...] On June 22, 2018, OPEC is to hold its 174th meeting in Vienna, Austria. One agenda item being closely monitored is a potential OPEC/non-OPEC decision to maintain, extend, enhance, or unwind the production agreement that is set to expire on December 31, 2018."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2018-04-28
-
Venezuela Oil Sector Sanctions: Market and Trade Impacts [Updated February 11, 2019]
"On January 28, 2019, the Trump Administration imposed sanctions on Venezuela's state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA), adding to existing Venezuela sanctions. The Department of the Treasury determined that persons (e.g., individuals and companies) operating in Venezuela's oil sector are subject to sanctions in order to apply economic pressure on the government of Nicolas Maduro and facilitate a transition to democracy. Subsequently, Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) added PdVSA--including all entities in which PdVSA has a 50% or more ownership position--to its Specifically Designated Nationals (SDN) list."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Phillip (Specialist in Energy Policy)
2019-02-11
