Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Vann, Adam" 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).
-
Wind Energy: Offshore Permitting [August 11, 2010]
"Technological advancement, financial incentives, and policy concerns have driven a global expansion in the development of renewable energy resources. Wind energy, in particular, is now often cited as the fastest growing commercial energy source in the world. Currently, all U.S. wind energy facilities are based on land. However multiple offshore projects have been proposed and are at various stages of the federal permitting process. The United States has the authority to permit and regulate offshore wind energy development within the zones of the oceans under its jurisdiction. The federal government and coastal states each have roles in the permitting process, the extents of which depend on whether the project is located in state or federal waters."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam
2010-08-11
-
Energy Projects on Federal Lands: Leasing and Authorization [May 4, 2011]
"Recent concerns over energy supply and pricing have led some to look increasingly to federal lands as a potential energy source. This report explains the legal framework for energy leasing and permitting for onshore lands subject to the control of the federal government. The report first reviews the laws and regulations affecting leasing of federal lands for exploration and production of oil, natural gas, and coal, as well as the permits that lessees must obtain in order to explore for and produce these resources. This leasing process has evolved over the last century under the framework established by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA). Oil, natural gas, and coal leasing and production on federal land pursuant to this act are currently overseen by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). Federal lands that the area's Resource Management Plan (RMP) determines to be amenable to oil, coal, or natural gas exploration and production may be leased by BLM, so long as such activities in that area are not prohibited by statute or regulation. Such lands are usually leased to the highest bidder as determined by competitive auction. Leaseholders are generally required to pay both rental fees and royalties (a percentage of the value of produced oil, natural gas, or coal) to the U.S. government. The report also addresses existing laws and regulations that govern the use of federal lands for renewable energy projects, including geothermal, wind, and solar energy."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam
2011-05-04
-
Wind Energy: Offshore Permitting [September 3, 2009]
"Technological advancement, tax incentives, and policy concerns have driven a global expansion in the development of renewable energy resources. Wind energy, in particular, is now often cited as the fastest growing commercial energy source in the world. Currently, all U.S. wind energy facilities are based on land. However, multiple offshore projects have been proposed and are moving through the permitting process. The United States has the authority to permit and regulate offshore wind energy development within the zones of the oceans under its jurisdiction. The federal government and coastal states each have roles in the permitting process, the extent of which depends on whether the project is located in state or federal waters. Currently, no single federal agency has exclusive responsibility for permitting related to activities on submerged lands in federal waters; authority is allocated among various agencies based on the nature of the resource to be exploited and the type of impacts incidental to such exploitation. The same is true for offshore wind energy context, where several federal agencies have a role to play in permitting development and operation activities. Section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct; P.L. 109-58) addressed previous uncertainties regarding offshore wind projects. This provision retained a role for the Army Corps of Engineers in permitting under the Rivers and Harbors Act but grants ultimate authority over offshore wind energy development to the Secretary of the Interior."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam
2009-09-03
-
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Import Terminals: Siting, Safety, and Regulation [Updated February 24, 2009]
This report outlines the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals and shipment routes scheduled for construction in the United States. Among other things, this report addresses LNG safety-related legislation, potential safety hazards of LNG terminals, regulation of onshore LNG siting, key policy issues relating to LNG terminals, the shift in demand from natural gas to LNG consumption, and the possible changes in U.S. energy policy legislation to reduce the nation's demand for natural gas, and thus, the need for new LNG infrastructure. "Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a hazardous fuel shipped in large tankers to U.S. ports from overseas. […] Energy companies have proposed new LNG import terminals throughout the coastal United States. Many of these terminals would be built onshore near populated areas. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) grants federal approval for the siting of new onshore LNG facilities under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). This approval process incorporates minimum safety standards for LNG established by the Department of Transportation. Although LNG has had a record of relative safety for the last 45 years, and no LNG tanker or land-based facility has been attacked by terrorists, proposals for new LNG terminal facilities have generated considerable public concern."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Parfomak, Paul W.; Vann, Adam
2009-02-24
-
Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues [May 31, 2011]
"Canadian pipeline company TransCanada has filed an application with the U.S. Department of State to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport crude oil from the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, to refineries in the United States. Keystone XL would have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day, delivering crude oil to the market hub at Cushing, OK, and further to points in Texas. The project is expected to cost more than $7.0 billion, of which at least $5.4 billion would be spent on the U.S. portion. TransCanada is planning to build a short additional pipeline so that oil from the Bakken formation in Montana and North Dakota can also be carried on the Keystone XL pipeline. […] This report describes the Keystone XL pipeline proposal and the process required for federal approval. It summarizes key arguments for and against the pipeline put forth by the pipeline's developers, federal agencies, environmental groups, and other stakeholders. The report discusses potential consistency challenges faced by the State Department in reviewing the pipeline application given its recent prior approvals of similar pipeline projects. Finally, the report reviews the constitutional basis for the State Department's authority to issue a Presidential Permit, and opponents' possible challenges to this authority."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Parfomak, Paul W.; Luther, Linda G.; Vann, Adam . . .
2011-05-31
-
Federal Government's Role in Electric Transmission Facility Siting [October 28, 2010]
"The location and permitting of electricity transmission lines and facilities have traditionally been the exclusive province of the states, with only limited exceptions. However, the increasing complexity of the interstate transmission grid, as well as widespread power outages in recent history, has resulted in calls for an increased role for the federal government in transmission siting in an attempt to enhance reliability. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct; P.L. 109-58) established a role for the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in making transmission siting decisions. The act directed DOE to create 'transmission corridors' in locations that would help to ease strain on the interstate electricity transmission grid. The act also granted FERC secondary authority over transmission siting in the corridors. This new federal role in a decision-making process that had previously been the province of state governments was predictably met with resistance from those seeking to protect local and regional interests. However, the process of creating 'transmission corridors' and increasing the federal role in transmission siting has moved forward. Indeed, there have been calls for further expansion of the federal role in transmission siting by some policymakers and commentators. This report looks at the history of transmission siting and the reason behind the movement toward an increased federal role in siting decisions, explains the new federal role in transmission siting pursuant to EPAct, and discusses legal issues related to this and any potential future expansions of the federal role."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam
2010-10-28
-
Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Issues [July 12, 2012]
"Hydraulic fracturing is a technique developed initially to stimulate oil production from wells in declining oil reservoirs. With technological advances, hydraulic fracturing is now widely used to initiate oil and gas production in unconventional (low-permeability) oil and gas formations that were previously inaccessible. This process now is used in more than 90% of new oil and gas wells. Hydraulic fracturing is done after a well is drilled and involves injecting large volumes of water, sand (or other propping agent), and specialized chemicals under enough pressure to fracture the formations holding the oil or gas. The sand or other proppant holds the fractures open to allow the oil or gas to flow freely out of the formation and into a production well. […] This report reviews past and proposed treatment of hydraulic fracturing under the SDWA [Safe Drinking Water Act], the principal federal statute for regulating the underground injection of fluids to protect groundwater sources of drinking water. It reviews current SDWA provisions for regulating underground injection activities, and discusses some possible implications of, and issues associated with, enactment of legislation authorizing EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] to regulate hydraulic fracturing under this statute."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary; Vann, Adam
2012-07-12
-
Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues [June 29, 2011]
"Canadian pipeline company TransCanada has filed an application with the U.S. Department of State to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport crude oil from the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, to refineries in the United States. Keystone XL would have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day, delivering crude oil to the market hub at Cushing, OK, and further to points in Texas. The project is expected to cost more than $7.0 billion, of which at least $5.4 billion would be spent on the U.S. portion. TransCanada is planning to build a short additional pipeline so that oil from the Bakken formation in Montana and North Dakota can also be carried on the Keystone XL pipeline. As a facility connecting the United States with a foreign country, Keystone XL requires a Presidential Permit from the State Department. Issuance of a permit is dependant upon a finding that the project would serve the national interest. That finding is based, in part, on the environmental impacts of the project as determined in an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A draft EIS issued in April 2010 was rated 'inadequate' by the U.S. Environmental Protect Agency (EPA). […] Congress may have an oversight role stemming from federal environmental statutes that govern the pipeline's application review process. The North American-Made Energy Security Act (H.R. 1938) would direct the President to issue a final order granting or denying the Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline by November 1, 2011. Whatever the State Department's decision, legal challenges appear likely."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Parfomak, Paul W.; Nerurkar, Neelesh; Luther, Linda G. . . .
2011-06-29
-
Wind Energy: Offshore Permitting [May 1, 2008]
"Technological advancements and tax incentives have driven a global expansion in the development of renewable energy resources. Wind energy, in particular, is now often cited as the fastest growing commercial energy source in the world. Currently, all U.S. wind energy facilities are based on land; however, multiple offshore projects have been proposed and are moving through the permitting process. It is clear that the United States has the authority to permit and regulate offshore wind energy development within the zones of the oceans under its jurisdiction. The federal government and coastal states each have roles in the permitting process, the extent of which depends on whether the project is located in state or federal waters. Currently, no single federal agency has exclusive responsibility for permitting activities on submerged lands in federal waters; authority is instead allocated among various agencies based on the nature of the resource to be exploited and the type of impacts incidental to such exploitation. Likewise, in the wind energy context, several federal agencies will have a role to play in permitting development and operation activities. […] This report will discuss the disputes over Corps jurisdiction prior to enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as well as the current law applicable to siting offshore wind facilities."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam
2008-05-01
-
Gasoline Price Increases: Federal and State Authority to Limit 'Price Gouging' [August 23, 2011]
"Fluctuations in gasoline prices in recent years have renewed focus on the role of the government in discouraging 'price gouging,' a term commonly used to refer to sellers inflating prices to 'unfair' levels in order to take advantage of certain circumstances causing a decrease in supply, including emergencies. There have been legislative efforts to create a federal law addressing gasoline price gouging, including bills that would bar certain commercial practices as well as legislation that mandated the study of pricing of gasoline in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. While the federal government has not enacted legislation aimed specifically at addressing price gouging for gasoline, a majority of states have enacted statutes to curtail price gouging for certain critical goods and services, including fuel, during emergencies. Some of these statutes attempt to address price gouging by barring pricing during emergencies that is considered to be 'unconscionable' or 'excessive' or otherwise is in violation of a subjective standard. Other statutes place a hard cap on prices during periods of emergency based on percentage increases from prices charged for the good or service in question prior to the emergency. […] Although there is no federal law aimed specifically at price gouging, federal antitrust laws do forbid various types of anticompetitive business practices. For example, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits unreasonable restraints of trade. It is possible that if a group of gasoline retailers or other retailers collaborated to set prices unreasonably high during an emergency, this 'price gouging' could be a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition, while not necessarily tied to retail price gouging, federal statutes addressing monopolies and vertical integration may play a role in evaluating retail gasoline price changes."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam; Ruane, Kathleen Ann
2011-08-23
-
Federal Government's Role in Electric Transmission Facility Siting [September 8, 2011]
"The location and permitting of electricity transmission lines and facilities have traditionally been the exclusive province of the states, with only limited exceptions. However, the inability to get transmission lines built due to local interests, as well as competition in generation, has resulted in calls for an increased role for the federal government in transmission siting. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct; P.L. 109-58) established a role for the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in transmission siting. The act directed DOE to create 'transmission corridors' in locations with adequate transmission capacity. The act also granted FERC secondary authority over transmission siting in the corridors. This new federal role in a decision-making process that had previously been the province of state governments was predictably met with resistance from those seeking to protect local and regional interests. Although the process of creating 'transmission corridors' and increasing the federal role in transmission siting has moved forward, the Ninth Circuit recently vacated the congestion study that led to the designation of two such corridors. Nonetheless, there have been calls for further expansion of the federal role in transmission siting by some policymakers and commentators. This report looks at the history of transmission siting and the reason for an increased federal role in siting decisions, explains the new federal role in transmission siting pursuant to EPAct, and discusses legal issues related to this and any potential future expansions of the federal role."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam; DeBergh, James V.
2011-09-08
-
Electricity Transmission Cost Allocation [September 7, 2011]
"Perhaps the most contentious electricity transmission financing issue is cost allocation for new interstate transmission lines--that is, deciding which electricity customers pay how much of the cost of building and operating a new transmission line that crosses several states. This report provides background and analysis of current transmission cost allocation policy and issues. For many years, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) declined to go beyond establishing general principles as set forth in its Order No. 890, which addressed 'undue discrimination and preference' in the providing of transmission services. Transmission cost allocation proposals made by transmission service providers were therefore reviewed by FERC to ensure compliance with the general principles outlined in Order No. 890 and the Federal Power Act (FPA). However, there were calls for FERC to provide a clearer framework for cost allocation. The decision of the Seventh Circuit in 'Illinois Commerce Commission v. FERC', to reject a cost allocation plan approved by FERC which would have permitted 'socialization' of the costs for some new transmission projects (i.e., allowing the costs to be spread widely among ratepayers in the PJM Interconnection, even those who do not substantially or clearly benefit from a project) encouraged FERC to seek more clarity with respect to cost allocation. Congress also entered the fray in the form of legislative proposals that would amend the Federal Power Act to include new transmission cost allocation guidelines that FERC would be required to follow. […] The Final Order comes as state renewable portfolio standards and the upcoming U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for coal power plants may drive demand for new transmission lines. The uncertainty regarding the implications for generation resources of upcoming EPA regulations has caused some utilities to delay decisions on building new generation, with plans to satisfy (at least interim) power needs from power markets until the regulatory clarity they seek is provided. This report analyzes recent developments concerning transmission cost allocation leading up to Order No. 1000, as well as the contents of the order and their potential impact on the transmission planning process in the future. FERC acknowledges that some key questions may only be answered in the compliance filing process."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Campbell, Richard J.; Vann, Adam
2011-09-07
-
Wind Energy: Offshore Permitting [October 17, 2012]
"Technological advancement, financial incentives, and policy concerns have driven a global expansion in the development of renewable energy resources. Wind energy, in particular, is often cited as one of the fastest-growing commercial energy sources in the world. Currently, all U.S. wind energy facilities are based on land. However, multiple offshore projects have been proposed and are at various stages of the federal permitting process. The United States has the authority to permit and regulate offshore wind energy development within the zones of the oceans under its jurisdiction. The federal government and coastal states each have roles in the permitting process, the extents of which depend on whether the project is located in state or federal waters. Currently, no single federal agency has exclusive responsibility for permitting related to activities on submerged lands in federal waters; authority is allocated among various agencies based on the nature of the resource to be exploited and the potential impacts incidental to such exploitation. The same is true for the offshore wind energy context, where several federal agencies have a role to play in permitting development and operation activities. Section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct; P.L. 109-58) amended the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) to address previous uncertainties regarding offshore wind projects. This provision retained a role for the Army Corps of Engineers in permitting under the Rivers and Harbors Act but grants ultimate authority over offshore wind energy development to the Secretary of the Interior. The statutory authority granted by Section 388 is administered by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), an agency within the Department of the Interior (DOI). Since the passage of EPAct, BOEM has promulgated rules and guidelines governing the permitting and operation of offshore wind facilities."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam
2012-10-17
-
Electricity Transmission Cost Allocation [December 18, 2012]
"Perhaps the most contentious electricity transmission financing issue is cost allocation for new interstate transmission lines--that is, deciding which electricity customers pay how much of the cost of building and operating a new transmission line that crosses several states. This report provides background and analysis of current transmission cost allocation policy and issues. […] This report analyzes recent developments concerning transmission cost allocation leading up to Order No. 1000, as well as the contents of the order and their potential impact on the transmission planning process in the future. FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] acknowledges that some key questions may only be answered in the compliance filing process."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Campbell, Richard J.; Vann, Adam
2012-12-18
-
Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues [January 24, 2013]
"In May 2012, Canadian pipeline company TransCanada reapplied to the U.S. Department of State for a Presidential Permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline would transport crude oil from the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, to the existing Keystone Pipeline System in Nebraska. It also could accept U.S. crude from the Bakken oil fields in Montana and North Dakota. A second segment of the Keystone XL pipeline system, the Gulf Coast Project, is proceeding separately to connect existing pipeline facilities in Oklahoma to refineries in Texas. When completed, the entire Keystone XL pipeline system would ultimately have capacity to transport 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day to U.S. market hubs. TransCanada submitted the May 2012 permit application after its 2008 Keystone XL permit application was denied. The State Department has jurisdiction over the Keystone XL pipeline's approval because it would cross the U.S. border. Before it can approve such a permit, the department must determine that the project is in the 'national interest,' accounting for potential effects on the environment, economy, energy security, and foreign policy, among other factors. Environmental impacts are considered under the National Environmental Policy Act, as documented in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). For the 2008 permit application, a final EIS was issued in August 2011, followed by a public review period. Largely in response to public comments and efforts by the state of Nebraska, the State Department determined that it needed to examine alternative pipeline routes that would avoid the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska, a sand dune formation with highly porous soil and shallow groundwater that recharges the Ogallala aquifer."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Parfomak, Paul W.; Pirog, Robert L.; Luther, Linda G. . . .
2013-01-24
-
Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Regulatory Issues [January 10, 2013]
"Hydraulic fracturing is a technique developed initially to stimulate oil production from wells in declining oil reservoirs. With technological advances, hydraulic fracturing is now widely used to initiate oil and gas production in unconventional (low-permeability) oil and gas formations that were previously inaccessible. This process now is used in more than 90% of new oil and gas wells. Hydraulic fracturing is done after a well is drilled and involves injecting large volumes of water, sand (or other propping agent), and specialized chemicals under enough pressure to fracture the formations holding the oil or gas. The sand or other proppant holds the fractures open to allow the oil or gas to flow freely out of the formation and into a production well. Its application, along with horizontal drilling, for production of natural gas (methane) from tight gas sands, unconventional shale formations, and coal beds, has resulted in the marked expansion of estimated U.S. natural gas reserves in recent years. Similarly, hydraulic fracturing is enabling the development of tight oil resources, such as the Bakken and Eagle Ford formations. The rapid growth in the use of fracturing has raised concerns over its potential impacts on groundwater and drinking water sources, and has led to calls for more state and/or federal oversight of this activity. […] This report reviews past and proposed treatment of hydraulic fracturing under the SDWA [Safe Drinking Water Act], the principal federal statute for regulating the underground injection of fluids to protect groundwater sources of drinking water. It reviews current SDWA provisions for regulating underground injection activities, and discusses some possible implications of the enactment of legislation authorizing EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] to regulate hydraulic fracturing (beyond diesel) under this statute."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary; Vann, Adam
2013-01-10
-
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment [January 22, 2013]
"The 112th Congress has examined numerous energy sources to determine their contribution to the nation's energy portfolio and the federal role in supporting these sources. Hydropower, the use of flowing water to produce electricity, is one such source. Conventional hydropower accounted for approximately 8% of total U.S. net electricity generation in 2011. The use and support of hydropower is likely to remain an active issue area for the 113th Congress. […] This report explains how the federal government is involved directly in hydropower generation at federal facilities and in the regulation of nonfederal hydropower generation; the focus is on current roles and processes and common concerns and questions about changing those roles."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam; Bracmort, Kelsi; Stern, Charles V.
2013-01-22
-
Legal Issues Associated with the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline [January 23, 2012]
From the Document: "In 2008, TransCanada Corp. applied for a presidential permit from the State Department to construct and operate an oil pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border in a project known as Keystone XL. The Keystone XL pipeline would transport oil produced from oil sands in Alberta, Canada, to Gulf Coast refineries. The permit application was subjected to review by the State Department pursuant to executive branch authority over cross-border pipeline facilities as articulated in Executive Order 13337. [...] New legislative activity with respect to the permitting of border-crossing facilities, a subject previously handled exclusively by the executive branch, has triggered inquiries as to whether this raises constitutional issues related to the jurisdiction of the two branches over such facilities. Additionally, as states have begun to contemplate taking action with respect to the pipeline siting, some have questioned whether state siting of a pipeline is preempted by federal law. Others argue that states dictating the route of the pipeline violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution which, among other things, prohibits one state from acting to protect its own interests to the detriment of other states."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam; Alexander, Kristina; Thomas, Kenneth R.
2012-01-23
-
Legal Issues Associated with the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline [December 16, 2011]
From the Document: "In 2008, TransCanada Corp. applied for a Presidential Permit from the State Department to construct and operate an oil pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border in a project known as Keystone XL. The Keystone XL pipeline would transport oil produced from oil sands in Alberta, Canada, to Gulf Coast refineries. Environmental organizations and federal and state legislators are scrutinizing the State Department's review of the Keystone XL project. Environmentalists question the adequacy of the review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the routing of the pipeline near key aquifers, and the emissions caused by the oil production. Additionally, as states have begun to contemplate taking action with respect to the pipeline siting, some have questioned whether state siting of a pipeline is preempted by federal law. Others argue that states dictating the route of the pipeline violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution prohibiting one state from acting to protect its own interests to the detriment of other states. This report reviews those legal issues, finding generally that state oversight of pipeline siting decisions does not appear to violate federal law or the Constitution."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Thomas, Kenneth R.; Alexander, Kristina; Vann, Adam
2011-12-16
-
Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues [March 13, 2012]
"In 2008, Canadian pipeline company TransCanada filed an application with the U.S. Department of State to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport crude oil from the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Keystone XL would ultimately have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day, delivering crude oil to the market hub at Cushing, OK, and further to points in Texas. TransCanada plans to build a pipeline spur so that oil from the Bakken formation in Montana and North Dakota can also be carried on Keystone XL. As a facility connecting the United States with a foreign country, the pipeline requires a Presidential Permit from the State Department. […] On February 27, 2012, TransCanada announced that it would proceed with development of the Keystone XL segment connecting Cushing, OK, to the Gulf Coast as a stand-alone project not requiring a Presidential Permit. […] The Obama administration supports TransCanada's plan to proceed with the southernmost segment of the Keystone XL pipeline while reserving judgment on a reconfigured northern segment until completion of a new Presidential Permit review. […] Changing, or eliminating altogether, the State Department's role in issuing cross-border infrastructure permits may raise questions about the President's executive authority, however. H.R. 3900 would seek to ensure that crude oil transported by the Keystone XL pipeline, or resulting refined petroleum products, would be sold only into U.S. markets, but could raise issues related to international trade agreements."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Parfomak, Paul W.; Nerurkar, Neelesh; Luther, Linda G. . . .
2012-03-13
-
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Import Terminals: Siting, Safety, and Regulation [Updated May 15, 2008]
This CRS report "provides an overview of recent industry proposals for new LNG [Liquefied Natural Gas] import terminals. The report summarizes LNG hazards and the industry's safety record. It discusses federal laws and regulations related to LNG terminal siting with a focus on the authorities of key federal agencies and safety provisions in the permitting of onshore facilities. The report reviews controversial safety issues in recent LNG siting proceedings, such as safety zones, marine hazards, hazard modeling, and remote siting." It also "outlines policy issues related to LNG terminal safety, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's [FERC's] LNG siting authority, regional LNG siting, 'remote' siting requirements in federal regulations, state permitting requirements, terrorism, and other issues […] Liquefied natural gas [LNG] historically has played a minor role in U.S. energy markets, but concerns about rising natural gas prices, current price volatility, and the possibility of domestic shortages are sharply increasing demand for LNG imports. To meet this demand, dozens of new onshore and offshore LNG import terminals have been proposed in coastal regions throughout the United States. But LNG, like other fossils, is a hazardous1 liquid transported and stored in enormous quantities, often near populated areas. Concerns exist about the safety of new LNG import terminals and the federal government's role in addressing LNG safety in the terminal siting process. In addition, various energy policy proposals could impact the need for new LNG terminals by encouraging the development of alternative U.S. energy supplies and promoting conservation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Parfomak, Paul W.; Vann, Adam
2008-05-15
-
Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Issues [April 10, 2012]
"Hydraulic fracturing is a technique developed initially to stimulate oil production from wells in declining oil reservoirs. More recently, it has been used to initiate oil and gas production in unconventional (i.e., low-permeability) reservoirs where these resources were previously inaccessible. This process now is used in more than 90% of new oil and gas production wells. Hydraulic fracturing is done after a well is drilled and involves injecting large volumes of water, sand (or other propping agent), and specialized chemicals under enough pressure to fracture the formations holding the oil or gas. The sand or other proppant holds the fractures open to allow the oil or gas to flow freely out of the formation and into a production well. Its application, along with horizontal drilling, for production of natural gas (methane) from coal beds, tight gas sands, and, more recently, from unconventional shale formations, has resulted in the marked expansion of estimated U.S. natural gas reserves in recent years. Similarly, hydraulic fracturing is enabling the development of unconventional domestic oil resources, such as the Bakken Formation in North Dakota and Montana. However, the rapidly increasing and geographically expanding use of fracturing, along with a growing number of citizen complaints and state investigations of well water contamination attributed to this practice, has led to calls for greater state and/or federal environmental regulation and oversight of this activity."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam; Tiemann, Mary
2012-04-10
-
Hydraulic Fracturing: Chemical Disclosure Requirements [April 4, 2012]
"This report provides an overview of current and proposed laws at the state and federal levels that require the disclosure of the chemicals added to the fluid used in hydraulic fracturing. Currently, no such law or regulation exists at the federal level. In his 2012 State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama said he would obligate 'all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use,' citing health and safety concerns. Not long afterward, a draft of a proposed fracking chemical disclosure rule from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that would require disclosure of the content of fracking fluids used on lands managed by BLM was disclosed. In addition, there have been legislative efforts in the 112th Congress. H.R. 1084 and S. 587, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (FRAC Act), would create more broadly applicable disclosure requirements for parties engaged in hydraulic fracturing."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Murrill, Brandon J.; Vann, Adam
2012-04-04
-
Legal Issues Raised by Provision in House Energy Bill (H.R. 6) Creating Incentives for Certain OCS Leaseholders to Accept Price Thresholds [Updated April 16, 2007]
From the Document: "In February 2007, Congress began looking into why certain oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) - specifically, some 1,024 deep water leases in the Gulf of Mexico issued in 1998 and 1999 - did not contain "price thresholds." A price threshold in an OCS oil and gas lease means that once the market price for oil and natural gas rises above a certain price, the lessee's freedom from having to pay royalties no longer applies. Such freedom from paying royalties was thought necessary by Congress to promote exploration and production in deep water areas of the Gulf, and was embodied in the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (DWRRA), enacted in 1995. Various legislative proposals surfaced to encourage holders of the 1998/1999 leases to renegotiate the terms of their leases so as to include price thresholds for future production of oil and gas. This report looks at several of the legal issues arguably raised by one such proposal, which on January 18, 2007, passed the House of Representatives as section 204 of H.R. 6, the House energy bill (more formally, the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act of 2007 or the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Meltz, Robert; Vann, Adam
2007-04-16
-
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Import Terminals: Siting, Safety and Regulation [Updated May 1, 2007]
"Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a hazardous fuel frequently shipped in large tankers to U.S. ports from overseas. While LNG has historically made up a small part of U.S. natural gas supplies, rising gas prices, current price volatility, and the possibility of domestic shortages are sharply increasing LNG demand. To meet this demand, energy companies have proposed building dozens of new LNG import terminals throughout the coastal United States. But many of these terminals would be built onshore near populated areas... Faced with the widely perceived need for greater LNG imports, and persistent public concerns about LNG safety, Congress is examining the adequacy of safety provisions in federal LNG siting regulation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Parfomak, Paul W.; Vann, Adam
2007-05-01
-
Hydraulic Fracturing: Chemical Disclosure Requirements [June 19, 2012]
"This report provides an overview of current and proposed laws and regulations at the state and federal levels that require the disclosure of the chemicals added to the fluid used in hydraulic fracturing. Currently, no such law or regulation exists at the federal level. In his 2012 State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama said he would obligate 'all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use,' citing health and safety concerns. In May 2012, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a proposed rule that would require disclosure of the content of fracturing fluids used on lands managed by the agency. In addition, there have been legislative efforts in the 112th Congress. H.R. 1084 and S. 587, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (FRAC Act), would create more broadly applicable disclosure requirements for parties engaged in hydraulic fracturing. At the state level, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, an organization with members that include state regulators and industry representatives, has argued that current regulation of hydraulic fracturing by the states is sufficient. At least 15 states already have some form of chemical disclosure requirements. These provisions vary widely, but generally indicate (1) which
parties must disclose information about chemical additives and whether these disclosures must be made to the public or a state agency; (2) what information about chemicals added to a fracturing fluid must be disclosed, including how specifically parties must describe the chemical makeup of the fracturing fluid and the additives that are combined with it; (3) what protections, if any, will be given to trade secrets; and (4) at what time disclosure must be made in relation to when fracturing takes place. Others states are in the process of considering disclosure laws or regulations."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Murrill, Brandon J.; Vann, Adam
2012-06-19
-
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment [June 26, 2012]
"Congress is examining numerous energy sources to determine their contribution to the nation's energy portfolio and the federal role in supporting these sources. Hydropower, the use of flowing water to produce electricity, is one such source. Conventional hydropower accounted for approximately 6% of total U.S. net electricity generation in 2010. Hydropower has advantages and disadvantages as an energy source. Its advantages include its status as a continuous, or baseload, power source that releases minimal air pollutants during power generation relative to fossil fuels. Some of its disadvantages, depending on the type of hydropower plant, include high initial capital costs, ecosystem disruption, and reduced generation during low water years and seasons. Hydropower project ownership can be categorized as federal or nonfederal. The bulk of federal projects are owned and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Nonfederal projects are licensed and overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Considered by many to be an established energy source, hydropower is not always discussed alongside clean or renewable energy sources in the ongoing energy debate. However, hydropower proponents argue that hydropower is cleaner than some conventional energy sources, and point to recent findings that additional hydropower capacity could help the United States reach proposed energy, economic, and environmental goals. Others argue that the expansion of hydropower in the form of numerous small hydropower projects could have environmental impacts and regulatory concerns similar to those of existing large projects."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Bracmort, Kelsi; Stern, Charles V.; Vann, Adam
2012-06-26
-
Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues [May 9, 2012]
"In 2008, Canadian pipeline company TransCanada filed an application with the U.S. Department of State to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport crude oil from the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Keystone XL would ultimately have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day, delivering crude oil to the market hub at Cushing, OK, and further to points in Texas. TransCanada plans to build a pipeline spur so that oil from the Bakken formation in Montana and North Dakota can also be carried on Keystone XL. [...] In the wake of the State Department's denial of the Presidential Permit, Congress has debated legislative options addressing the Keystone XL pipeline. The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II (H.R. 4348) and the North American Energy Access Act (H.R. 3548) would transfer the permitting authority for the Keystone XL pipeline project to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, requiring FERC to issue a permit within 30 days of enactment. The Keystone For a Secure Tomorrow Act (H.R. 3811), the Grow America Act of 2012 (S. 2199), S.2041 (a bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline), the EXPAND Act (H.R. 4301), and the Energizing America through Employment Act (H.R. 4000) would immediately approve the original permit application filed by TransCanada. All seven bills include provisions allowing for later alteration of the pipeline route in Nebraska. S. 2100 and H.R. 4211 would suspend sales of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until issuance of a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL project. Changing or eliminating the State Department's role in issuing cross-border infrastructure permits may raise questions about the President's executive authority, however. H.R. 3900 would seek to ensure that crude oil transported by the Keystone XL pipeline, or resulting refined petroleum products, would be sold only into U.S. markets, but this bill could raise issues related to international trade agreements."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Parfomak, Paul W.; Nerurkar, Neelesh; Luther, Linda G. . . .
2012-05-09
-
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Import Terminals: Siting, Safety, and Regulation [December 14, 2009]
"Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a hazardous fuel shipped in large tankers to U.S. ports from overseas. While LNG has historically made up a small part of U.S. natural gas supplies, rising price volatility, and the possibility of domestic shortages have significantly increased LNG demand. To meet this demand, energy companies have proposed new LNG import terminals throughout the coastal United States. Many of these terminals would be built onshore near populated areas. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) grants federal approval for the siting of new onshore LNG facilities under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). This approval process incorporates minimum safety standards for LNG established by the Department of Transportation. Although LNG has had a record of relative safety for the last 45 years, and no LNG tanker or land-based facility has been attacked by terrorists, proposals for new LNG terminal facilities have generated considerable public concern. Some community groups and governments officials fear that LNG terminals may expose nearby residents to unacceptable hazards. Ongoing public concern about LNG safety has focused congressional attention on the exclusivity of FERC's LNG siting authority, proposals for a regional LNG siting process, the lack of 'remote' siting requirements in FERC regulations, state permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act, terrorism attractiveness of LNG, the adequacy of Coast Guard security resources, and other issues."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Parfomak, Paul W.; Vann, Adam
2009-12-14
-
Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues [May 7, 2013]
"TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would transport oil sands crude from Canada and shale oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska for further delivery to Gulf Coast refineries. The pipeline would consist of 875 miles of 36-inch pipe with the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day. Because it would cross the Canadian-U.S. border, construction of Keystone XL requires a Presidential Permit from the State Department. A decision to issue or deny a Presidential Permit is based on a determination that a project would serve the national interest, considering potential impacts on the environment, the economy, energy security, foreign policy, and other factors. Environmental impacts are evaluated and documented in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). TransCanada originally applied for a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline in 2008. The initial proposal included a southern segment from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast. After a final EIS for the original project was released in August 2011, the State Department began a 90-day public review period to make its national interest determination. A key issue that arose during this review was concern over environmental impacts in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska. This concern led the Nebraska legislature to enact new state pipeline siting requirements that would alter the pipeline route through Nebraska. In January 2012, the State Department concluded that it would not have sufficient information to evaluate an altered pipeline route before a deadline imposed by Congress and denied the permit. The southern segment of the original Keystone XL proposal, now called the Gulf Coast Project, was subsequently separated from the original proposal because it did not require a Presidential Permit. It has been approved by the relevant states and is currently under construction."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Parfomak, Paul W.; Pirog, Robert L.; Luther, Linda G. . . .
2013-05-07
