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).
-
Presidential Permits for Border Crossing Energy Facilities [August 01, 2017]
"The executive branch of the U.S. federal government has mandated for decades that developers of border crossing energy facilities must first obtain a Presidential Permit. Until recently, this administrative oversight was undertaken with little fanfare. However, controversy over the proposed Keystone XL (eXport Limited) oil pipeline--a project that would transport oil sands crude from Alberta, Canada, into the United States--has focused attention on federal permitting of energy infrastructure border crossings. Generally, the construction, operation, and maintenance of facilities that cross the U.S.-Mexico or U.S.-Canada border must be authorized by the federal government through the issuance of a Presidential Permit in accordance with requirements set forth in a series of executive orders. This report discusses these executive orders, including the source of the executive branch authority to issue the orders, the standards set forth in the orders, and the projects approved pursuant to the orders. The report also discusses proposed changes to the Presidential Permitting framework in the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act (H.R. 2883), which passed in the House on July 19, 2017."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam; Parfomak, Paul W.
2017-08-01
-
Legal Framework of the Federal Power Act [January 22, 2020]
From the Document: "This In Focus provides an overview of the FPA [Federal Power Act], focusing largely on the first two Parts of the FPA. These Parts establish the framework for FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] regulation of two different energy industries: hydroelectric power generation, and wholesale electric energy sale/purchase and transmission."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam
2020-01-22
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Five-Year Program for Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing: History and Program for 2017-2022 [Updated August 23, 2019]
From the Introduction: "The first three sections of this report discuss the history and legal framework for BOEM's [Bureau of Ocean Energy Management] five-year leasing programs and outline the agency's development process. Subsequent sections briefly summarize previous programs and analyze the program for 2017-2022. The final section of the report discusses the role of Congress, with a focus on congressional oversight and legislation related to the 2017-2022 program."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Comay, Laura B.; Humphries, Marc; Vann, Adam
2019-08-23
-
Drilling Under New Wyoming Leases on Hold as Judge Requires BLM to Reconsider Impacts on Climate [Change April 16, 2019]
From the Document: "A recent decision in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit has paused oil and gas exploration and production activity in certain leased areas of Wyoming and hinted at heightened requirements that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) must satisfy to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before issuing oil and gas leases. Specifically, the decision will require BLM to conduct a more thorough review of the potential climate change impacts of certain oil and gas leases before allowing the lessees to conduct drilling operations."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam
2019-04-16
-
Hydropower: Federal and Nonfederal Investment [July 7, 2015]
"Congress continues to look at various fuel contributions to the electricity market and federal involvement with these fuel sources. Hydropower, the use of flowing water to produce electricity, is one such contribution. Conventional hydropower accounted for approximately 6% of total U.S. net electricity generation in 2014. […] Legislation related to hydropower development was enacted in the 113th Congress, including P.L. 113-23 and P.L. 113-24. P.L. 113-23, the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013, grants small hydropower projects with a capacity of 10 megawatts or less an exemption from FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] licensing requirements, promotes conduit hydropower projects, and requires FERC to examine the feasibility of a two-year licensing process to promote hydropower development at nonpowered dams and closed-loop pumped storage projects, among other things. P.L. 113-24, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act, authorizes nonfederal hydropower development at all Reclamation projects, provides for the preference of existing project sponsors in developing this power, and makes Reclamation the lead agency in implementing this authority."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Bracmort, Kelsi; Vann, Adam; Stern, Charles V.
2015-07-07
-
District Court Decision May Help Pave the Way for Trump Administration's Border Wall Plans [April 2, 2018]
"The construction of potentially hundreds of miles of fencing and other barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border is a key pillar of the Trump Administration's border security strategy. Completing this objective would likely require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), acting pursuant to existing statutory authority, to waive application of laws that the Secretary determined would impede the expeditious constructing of barriers along the border. A recent decision by Judge Gonzalo Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, turning aside challenges to DHS's exercise of this waiver authority for two border projects in southern California, is consistent with earlier court decisions upholding the DHS Secretary's waiver of numerous laws that might impede border fence deployment projects along the U.S.-Mexico border. Taken together, these court rulings suggest that those seeking to constrain the DHS's ability to waive environmental and other laws that might impede the construction of border fencing would likely need to pursue legislative options to achieve their ends, as repeated judicial challenges have been unsuccessful."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam
2018-04-02
-
Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework [May 2, 2011]
"The development of offshore oil, gas, and other mineral resources in the United States is impacted by a number of interrelated legal regimes, including international, federal, and state laws. International law provides a framework for establishing national ownership or control of offshore areas, and domestic federal law mirrors and supplements these standards. Governance of offshore minerals and regulation of development activities are bifurcated between state and federal law. Generally, states have primary authority in the three-geographical-mile area extending from their coasts. The federal government and its comprehensive regulatory regime govern those minerals located under federal waters, which extend from the states' offshore boundaries out to at least 200 nautical miles from the shore. The basis for most federal regulation is the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which provides a system for offshore oil and gas exploration, leasing, and ultimate development. Regulations run the gamut from health, safety, resource conservation, and environmental standards to requirements for production based royalties and, in some cases, royalty relief and other development incentives. [...] In addition to these legislative and regulatory efforts, there has also been significant litigation related to offshore oil and gas development. Cases handed down over a number of years have clarified the extent of the Secretary of the Interior's discretion in deciding how leasing and development are to be conducted."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam
2011-05-02
-
Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework [September 26, 2014]
"The development of offshore oil, gas, and other mineral resources in the United States is impacted by a number of interrelated legal regimes, including international, federal, and state laws. International law provides a framework for establishing national ownership or control of offshore areas, and domestic federal law mirrors and supplements these standards. Governance of offshore minerals and regulation of development activities are bifurcated between state and federal law. Generally, states have primary authority in the three-geographical-mile area extending from their coasts. The federal government and its comprehensive regulatory regime govern those minerals located under federal waters, which extend from the states' offshore boundaries out to at least 200 nautical miles from the shore. The basis for most federal regulation is the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which provides a system for offshore oil and gas exploration, leasing, and ultimate development. Regulations run the gamut from health, safety, resource conservation, and environmental standards to requirements for production based royalties and, in some cases, royalty relief and other development incentives."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam
2014-09-26
-
Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework [June 25, 2013]
"The development of offshore oil, gas, and other mineral resources in the United States is impacted by a number of interrelated legal regimes, including international, federal, and state laws. International law provides a framework for establishing national ownership or control of offshore areas, and U.S. domestic law has, in substance, adopted these internationally recognized principles. U.S. domestic law further defines U.S. ocean resource jurisdiction and ownership of offshore minerals, dividing regulatory authority and ownership between the states and the federal government based on the resource's proximity to the shore. This report explains the nature of U.S. authority over offshore areas pursuant to international and domestic law. It also describes the laws, at both the state and federal levels, governing the development of offshore oil and gas and the litigation that has flowed from development under these legal regimes. Also included is an outline of recent changes to the authorities regulating offshore development, as well as a discussion of recent executive action and legislative proposals concerning offshore oil and natural gas exploration and production."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam
2013-06-25
-
Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework [April 13, 2018]
"The development of offshore oil, gas, and other mineral resources in the United States is impacted by a number of interrelated legal regimes, including international, federal, and state laws. International law provides a framework for establishing national ownership or control of offshore areas, and domestic federal law mirrors and supplements these standards. Governance of offshore minerals and regulation of development activities are bifurcated between state and federal law. Generally, states have primary authority in the area extending three geographical miles from their coasts. The federal government and its comprehensive regulatory regime govern minerals located under federal waters, which extend from the states' offshore boundaries to at least 200 nautical miles from the shore. The basis for most federal regulation is the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which provides a system for offshore oil and gas exploration, leasing, and ultimate development. Regulations run the gamut from health, safety, resource conservation, and environmental standards to requirements for production-based royalties and, in some cases, royalty relief and other development incentives."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam
2018-04-13
-
Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework [March 21, 2013]
"The development of offshore oil, gas, and other mineral resources in the United States is impacted by a number of interrelated legal regimes, including international, federal, and state laws. International law provides a framework for establishing national ownership or control of offshore areas, and U.S. domestic law has, in substance, adopted these internationally recognized principles. U.S. domestic law further defines U.S. ocean resource jurisdiction and ownership of offshore minerals, dividing regulatory authority and ownership between the states and the federal government based on the resource's proximity to the shore. This report explains the nature of U.S. authority over offshore areas pursuant to international and domestic law. It also describes the laws, at both the state and federal levels, governing the development of offshore oil and gas and the litigation that has flowed from development under these legal regimes. Also included is an outline of recent changes to the authorities regulating offshore development, as well as a discussion of recent executive action and legislative proposals concerning offshore oil and natural gas exploration and production."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam
2013-03-21
-
Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework [January 30, 2009]
"The development of offshore oil, gas, and other mineral resources in the United States is impacted by a number of interrelated legal regimes, including international, federal, and state laws. International law provides a framework for establishing national ownership or control of offshore areas, and domestic federal law mirrors and supplements these standards. Governance of offshore minerals and regulation of development activities are bifurcated between state and federal law. Generally, states have primary authority in the three-geographical-mile area extending from their coasts. The federal government and its comprehensive regulatory regime govern those minerals located under federal waters, which extend from the states' offshore boundaries out to at least 200 nautical miles from the shore. The basis for most federal regulation is the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which provides a system for offshore oil and gas exploration, leasing, and ultimate development. Regulations run the gamut from health, safety, resource conservation, and environmental standards to requirements for production based royalties and, in some cases, royalty relief and other development incentives."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam
2009-01-30
-
Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework [September 20, 2010]
"Despite the Deepwater Horizon incident and subsequent suspension of some exploration and production activities, other recent legislative and regulatory activity suggests an increased willingness to allow offshore drilling in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. In 2006, Congress passed a measure that would allow new offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Areas of the North Aleutian Basin off the coast of Alaska have also been recently made available for leasing by executive order. The five-year plan for offshore leasing for 2007-2012 adopted by the Minerals Management Service (MMS, now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOE)) in December of 2007 proposed further expansion of offshore leasing. At the same time, the role of the coastal states in deciding whether to lease in areas adjacent to their shores has also received recent attention."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam
2010-09-20
-
2010 'Deepwater Horizon' Oil Spill: Natural Resource Damage Assessment Under the Oil Pollution Act [July 24, 2013]
"The 2010 'Deepwater Horizon' oil spill leaked an estimated 4.1 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, damaging the waters, shores, and marshes, and the fish and wildlife that live there. The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) allows state, federal, tribal, and federal governments to recover damages to natural resources in the public trust from the parties responsible for the oil spill. Under the public trust doctrine, natural resources are managed by the states for the benefit of all citizens, except where a statute vests such management in the federal government. In particular, OPA authorizes Trustees (representatives of federal, state, and local government entities with jurisdiction over the natural resources in question) to assess the damages to natural resources resulting from a spill, and to develop a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement or acquisition of the equivalent, of the natural resources. The types of damages that are recoverable include the cost of replacing or restoring the lost resource, the lost value of those resources if or until they are recovered, and any costs incurred in assessing the harm. OPA caps liability for offshore drilling units at $75 million for economic damages, but does not limit liability for the costs of containing and removing the oil."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam; Meltz, Robert
2013-07-24
-
Federal Permitting and Oversight of Export of Fossil Fuels [August 4, 2014]
From the Summary: "Recent technological developments have led to an increase in domestic production of natural gas and crude oil. As a result, there is interest among some parties in exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) and crude oil to take advantage of international markets. This has placed new attention on the laws and regulations governing, and in many cases restricting, the export of fossil fuels. In most cases, export of fossil fuels requires federal authorization of both the act of exporting the fuel and the facility that will be employed to export the fuel. For example, the export of natural gas is permitted by the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy, while the construction and operation of the export facility must be authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Oil exports are restricted, but an export that falls under one of several exemptions can be authorized by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security. Oil pipelines that cross international borders must be permitted by the State Department. Coal exports do not require special authorization specific to the commodity; however, as with natural gas and crude oil, other generally applicable federal statutes and regulations may apply to the export of coal."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam; Shedd, Daniel T.; Murrill, Brandon J.
2014-08-04
-
Keystone XL Pipeline: Overview and Recent Developments [November 13, 2014]
"In May 2012, TransCanada (a Canadian company) submitted to the U.S. Department of State an application for a Presidential Permit authorizing construction and operation of pipeline facilities for the importation of crude oil at the United States-Canada border. The Keystone XL Pipeline would transport Canadian oil sands crude extracted in Alberta, Canada, and crude produced from the Bakken region in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska for further delivery to Gulf Coast refineries. A decision to issue the Presidential Permit would be conditioned on a State Department determination that the pipeline project would serve the national interest. Members of Congress remain divided on the merits of the project, as some have expressed support for the potential energy security and economic benefits, while others have reservations about its potential environmental impacts. There is also concern over how much crude oil, or petroleum products refined from Keystone XL crude, would be exported overseas. Though Congress, to date, has had no direct role in permitting the pipeline's construction, it has oversight stemming from federal environmental statutes that govern the review. Further, Congress may seek to influence the State Department's process or to assert direct congressional authority over approval through new legislation. This report describes the Keystone XL Pipeline Project and the process that the State Department must complete to decide whether it will approve or deny TransCanada's permit application. The report also discusses key energy security, economic, and environmental issues relevant to the State Department's national interest determination. Some of these issues include perspectives among various stakeholders both in favor of and opposed to the construction of the pipeline. Finally, the report discusses 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
Fergusson, Ian F.; Pirog, Robert L.; Vann, Adam . . .
2014-11-13
-
Hydraulic Fracturing: Selected Legal Issues [October 22, 2013]
"Hydraulic fracturing is a technique used to recover oil and natural gas from underground low permeability rock formations. Its use along with horizontal drilling has been responsible for an increase in estimated U.S. oil and natural gas reserves. Hydraulic fracturing and related oil and gas production activities have been controversial because of their potential effects on public health and the environment. Several environmental statutes have implications for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing by the federal government and states. An amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) passed as a part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) clarified that the Underground Injection Control (UIC) requirements found in the SDWA do not apply to hydraulic fracturing, although the exclusion does not extend to the use of diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing operations. The underground injection of wastewater generated during oil and gas production (including hydraulic fracturing) does require a UIC permit under the SDWA, as do injections for enhanced oil and gas recovery operations. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), parties seeking to discharge produced water may have to apply for a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued new rules covering emissions of volatile organic compounds from hydraulic fracturing operations."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam; Murrill, Brandon J.; Tiemann, Mary
2013-10-22
-
Presidential Permits for Border Crossing Energy Facilities [October 29, 2013]
"Controversy over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project has focused attention on the existing U.S. requirements for authorization to construct and operate pipelines and other energy infrastructure at international borders. For the most part, developers are required to obtain a Presidential Permit for border crossing facilities. The agency responsible for reviewing applications and issuing Presidential Permits varies depending on the type of facility. Oil and other hazardous liquids pipelines that cross borders are authorized by the U.S. Department of State. Natural gas pipeline border crossings are authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Electricity transmission facilities are authorized by the Department of Energy. CRS [Congressional Research Service] has identified over 100 operating or proposed oil, natural gas, and electric transmission facilities crossing the U.S.-Mexico or U.S.-Canada border. […] Legislation proposed in the 112th and 113th Congresses has been, for the most part, directed at Presidential Permit authority only with respect to the Keystone XL project--although such legislation could set a precedent for Congress to assert authority over cross border energy infrastructure permits more broadly. However, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act (H.R. 3301) would change presidential permitting for all border crossing energy infrastructure. What practical effects any of these legislative proposals would have on the review and approval of future border crossing energy infrastructure projects is the subject of ongoing debate." Supporting tables show applications for, and existing energy resources crossing both Canadian and Mexican borders with the U.S.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam; Parfomak, Paul W.
2013-10-29
-
Federal Permitting and Oversight of Export of Fossil Fuels [September 17, 2013]
From the Introduction: "Partly as a result of the increased use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas from shale formations in the United States, the domestic supply of natural gas has increased relative to demand, leading to lower domestic prices. This has generated increased interest by some U.S. companies in exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) to take advantage of relatively higher prices in world markets. This new interest in exporting natural gas has also produced renewed interest in the laws and regulations governing the export of other fossil fuels, including crude oil, natural gas, and coal. This report reviews federal laws and the regulatory regime governing the export of natural gas, crude oil, and coal. This report provides an overview of federal laws and regulations and agency roles in authorizing and regulating the export of these fossil fuels. The report addresses several categories of federal laws and regulations, including (1) statutes that establish the authorization process for the actual export of any of the three listed fossil fuels; (2) statutes that govern the permitting of the facilities that export any of the listed fossil fuels; and (3) generally applicable trade statutes and treaties that affect exports of fossil fuels."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Murrill, Brandon J.; Shedd, Daniel T.; Vann, Adam
2013-09-17
-
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
-
Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Regulatory Issues [July 13, 2015]
"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 uneconomical to produce. Nationwide, this process is now used in more than
90% of new oil and gas wells and in many existing wells to stimulate production. 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 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. In combination with directional
drilling, its application for production of natural gas (methane) from unconventional shale
formations, tight sands, 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
resources and has led to calls for more state and/or federal oversight of this activity."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary; Vann, Adam
2015-07-13
-
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's Five-Year Program for Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing: History and Proposed Program for 2017-2022 [May 23, 2016]
From this Congressional Research Service (CRS) report: "The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), within the Department of the Interior (DOI), is preparing a program for offshore oil and gas leasing on the U.S. outer continental shelf (OCS) for the five-year period from mid-2017 through mid-2022. Currently, BOEM is implementing a previous five-year leasing program for the 2012-2017 period. BOEM prepares five-year leasing programs under Section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended (OCSLA; 43 U.S.C. §1331 ff). The law requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare and maintain forward-looking plans that indicate proposed public oil and gas lease sales in U.S. waters. In doing so, the Secretary must balance national interests in energy supply and environmental protection."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Comay, Laura B.; Humphries, Marc; Vann, Adam
2016-05-23
-
Volkswagen, Defeat Devices, and the Clean Air Act: Frequently Asked Questions [February 10, 2016]
"The German automotive manufacturer Volkswagen Automotive Group (VW) has admitted to installing a software algorithm in several of its diesel-fueled vehicle engines that acts as a 'defeat device': the software detects when the vehicle is undergoing compliance testing and activates certain pollution control devices to reduce tailpipe emissions. During normal driving situations, however, the control devices are turned off, resulting in higher emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and other air pollutants than claimed by the company. Federal and California regulators and the European Union (EU) are examining the use of this software, which was reportedly installed in 11 million vehicles worldwide. […] This report is organized as a series of frequently asked questions. It focuses on a description of modern diesel technologies, their market and emissions profiles, and some potential reasons that could underlie the use of defeat devices. It summarizes the specific allegations filed against VW under the Clean Air Act, the current status of federal and state investigations, and the potential civil and criminal penalties which may result. Further, the report introduces several outstanding issues currently under debate, including whether EPA has sufficient resources to monitor vehicle emissions, whether the current penalty structure is sufficient, why EPA failed to detect VW's defeat device when there have been similar cases in the past, and whether VW's response to the emissions problem and its efforts to provide restitution to U.S. customers has been adequate."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Canis, Bill; Lattanzio, Richard K.; Vann, Adam . . .
2016-02-10
-
Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues [April 9, 2013]
"TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would transport oil sands crude from Canada and crude produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska for further delivery to Gulf Coast refineries. The proposed 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). […] Development of the Keystone XL Pipeline has been controversial. Proponents base their arguments supporting the pipeline primarily on increasing the diversity of the U.S. petroleum supply and economic benefits, especially jobs. Pipeline opposition stems in part from concern regarding the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the development of Canadian oil sands, continued U.S. dependency on fossil fuels, and the risk of a potential release of heavy crude. The Energy Production and Project Delivery Act of 2013 (S. 17), the Keystone for a Secure Tomorrow Act (H.R. 334), a bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline (S. 582), and the Northern Route Approval Act (H.R. 3) would all effectively approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Strategic Petroleum Supplies Act (S. 167) would suspend sales of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until the pipeline is approved. On March 22, 2013, the Senate passed an amendment to the Fiscal 2014 Senate Budget Resolution (S.Con.Res. 8) that would provide for the approval and construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline (S.Amdt. 494)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Parfomak, Paul W.; Pirog, Robert L.; Luther, Linda G. . . .
2013-04-09
-
Keystone XL Pipeline: Overview and Recent Developments [January 5, 2015]
"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, Keystone XL requires a Presidential Permit from the State Department predicated on the department's determination that the project would serve the national interest. That determination considers environmental impacts, evaluated and documented in an environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). TransCanada originally applied for a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline in 2008. An issue that arose during the permit review was 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. The Presidential Permit was subsequently denied by the State Department. In May 2012, TransCanada reapplied for a Presidential Permit with a modified route through Nebraska. The new permit application initiated a new NEPA process."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Parfomak, Paul W.; Luther, Linda G.; Lattanzio, Richard K. . . .
2015-01-05
-
Keystone XL Pipeline: Overview and Recent Developments [April 1, 2015]
"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, Keystone XL requires a Presidential Permit from the State Department based on a determination that the pipeline would 'serve the national interest.' To make its national interest determination (NID), the department considers potential effects on energy security; environmental and cultural resources; the economy; foreign policy, and other factors. Effects on environmental and cultural resources are determined by preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NID process also provides for public comment and requires the State Department to consult with specific federal agencies."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Parfomak, Paul W.; Luther, Linda G.; Lattanzio, Richard K. . . .
2015-04-01
-
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
