Advanced search    Help

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).

• Cyber Security, Hearing Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, to Receive Testimony on a Joint Staff Draft Related to Cyber Security and Critical Electricity Infrastructure, May 7, 2009

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Jeff Bingaham: "We recently sponsored a classified briefing for members and staff on this set of issues. Members of security agencies and the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission told us about these threats and about the inadequacy of our government's authority to respond to and prevent these threats. Some thought that we had taken sufficient action to protect against these types of threats when we put into place the Reliability Protection Structure of section 215 of the Federal Power Act which we passed in 2005. More recently however, we have come to believe that these provisions do not provide sufficient protection against computer attacks. Both the recent Republican Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Joe Kelliher, and the current Democratic Chair, Jon Wellinghoff, have indicated that they believe they need stronger authority to deal with cyber threats and vulnerabilities. Almost all the witnesses gathered here today agree that we need some kind of increased Federal authority, although there is disagreement as to exactly what that authority should look like and who should exercise it. This hearing is on a bill that we intend to include in a comprehensive energy bill that the committee is working on to address these gaps in Federal authority and to protect against these dangers." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Jeff Bingaham, Patricia Hoffman, Joseph McClelland, Allen Mosher, David K. Owens, and Richard P. Sergel.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2009
• Energy Security and Oil Dependence, Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Ninth Congress, Second Session, May 16, 2006

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Richard G. Lugar: "The committee meets today to consider strategies for reducing dependence on oil. This dependence brings intolerable costs to American national security and economic well-being. If oil averages just $60 a barrel this year, the import costs to the United States economy will be approximately $320 billion. This revenue stream emboldens difficult oil-rich regimes and enables them to entrench corruption and authoritarianism, fund anti-Western demagogic appeals, and support terrorism. As global oil demand increases and the world becomes more reliant on reserves concentrated in unstable regions, the likelihood of conflict over energy supplies will dramatically increase, and energy-rich countries will have more opportunity to use their energy exports as weapons against energy-poor nations. High prices over the past 10 months have demonstrated the vulnerability of supply. A global oil market tightened by underinvestment in production and surging global demand has been aggravated by hurricanes, unrest in Nigeria, speculation about developments in Iran, weakened capacity in Venezuela, and terrorist activity in Iraq and elsewhere. In this environment, the price shock from a major supply disruption could cause a recession. Today we will concentrate on how our Government can speed up the transition to alternative, sustainable energy sources. We are cognizant that despite past campaigns for energy independence and constant improvement in energy intensity per GDP, we are more dependent on oil imports today than we were when President Nixon authorized Project Independence in 1973. Yet, I believe we are turning a corner. The American public and elected officials are becoming more aware of the severe problems associated with energy dependence and are more willing to take aggressive action."

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2006-05-16
• Homeland Security: Title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 Statement of (Ms) Gary L. Jones, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss several aspects of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The proposed legislation would bring many federal entities with homeland security responsibilities into a Department of Homeland Security in an effort to mobilize and focus assets and resources. Title III of the proposed legislation would task the new department with developing national policy for and coordinating the federal government's research and development efforts for responding to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. It would also transfer to the new department responsibility for certain research and development programs and other activities, including those of the Department of Energy (DOE). In my testimony today, which focuses on Title III of the proposed legislation, I will address (1) the need for clarification of certain roles and responsibilities of the new department and (2) our observations on transferring certain activities of DOE to the new department. Our testimony is based largely on our previous and ongoing work on national preparedness issues, as well as a review of the proposed legislation.

  United States. General Accounting Office

  2002-07-09
• Department of Energy: Observations on Efforts by NNSA and the Office of Environmental Management to Manage and Oversee the Nuclear Security Enterprise, Statement of David C. Trimble, Director Natural Resources and Environment, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "DOE's [Department of Energy] NNSA [National Nuclear Security Administration] is responsible for managing the nuclear weapon stockpile and supporting nuclear nonproliferation efforts. NNSA executes its missions at eight sites that make up the nuclear security enterprise. DOE's EM's [Office of Environmental Management] mission includes decontaminating and decommissioning facilities that are contaminated from decades of nuclear weapons production and nuclear energy research. DOE has made progress, but GAO [Government Accountability Office] continues to identify challenges across the nuclear security enterprise, including with major projects' cost and schedule delays. With NNSA and EM proposing to spend tens of billions of dollars to modernize the nuclear security enterprise, it is important to ensure that scarce resources are spent in an effective and efficient manner. This testimony discusses DOE's (1) ongoing challenges in nuclear security modernization, (2) growing cost of environmental liabilities, and (3) nonproliferation accomplishments and long-term planning challenges. GAO's statement is based mainly on information from 11 prior GAO reports issued from February 2015 to February 2016, as well as on ongoing work on (1) DOE's plans to develop a high-level waste repository and (2) environmental liabilities. That work included reviewing agency documents and interviewing agency officials. GAO is not making any new recommendations. DOE continues to act on the numerous recommendations GAO has made in these areas. GAO will continue to monitor DOE's implementation of these recommendations."

  United States. Government Accountability Office

  Trimble, David

  2016-02-23
• Energy Security in a Time of Plenty

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "From 1986-1996, the world energy supply increased by 2.6 percent per year, excluding the former Soviet Union (FSU) where production fell sharply. Oil's share of the world energy supply held constant at about 40 percent; natural gas' share rose to 23 percent, while coal's fell to 27 percent, with hydro and nuclear power sources making up the remaining 10 percent. Most natural gas and coal supplies are consumed in the country in which they are produced; oil makes up about 90 percent of the energy traded between countries. The main factor driving the increasing supply of energy between 1986-96 was not price. In fact, prices were not particularly attractive for producers." According to this paper, "Energy supply trends are good for Western Security. Dependence on the volatile Persian Gulf may increase only slightly, as additional supplies come from stable pro-Western areas. [...] An energy security issue for the coming decade will be adjusting to the next energy trade pattern, in which East Asia and the Persian Gulf become more tightly tied--each more reliant on the other."

  National Defense University. Institute for National Strategic Studies

  Clawson, Patrick, 1951-

  1997-10
• Serial No. 109-70: Terrorist Threats to Energy Security: Hearing before the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation of the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, July 27, 2005

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Edward R. Royce: "The possibility of energy terrorism -attacks on the worlds energy infrastructure - doesn't generate the same attention as potential chemical or biological or nuclear terrorism. But the economic implications of such attacks are potentially enormous. Many believe that the reason we are looking at oil at $60 a barrel is the fact that we have a terror premium factored into the price of a barrel of oil. Some suggest that oil terrorism is emerging as a major threat to the global economy. Combating this threat should be a part of our complex goal of improving our Nations energy security. Because of U.S. energy demands and the global nature of energy markets, terrorists can strike at us almost anywhere in the world. Oil markets are tight, with little spare capacity, and demand is increasing. As we will hear today, there is strong evidence that a relatively small disruption to oil production throughout the world could spike world energy prices, severely harming the American economy. We have taken steps to improve the security of the energy infrastructure of this country since 9/11. But, unfortunately, terrorist attacks abroad could hurt us as if they were committed here at home." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Edward R. Royce, Robbie Diamond, John P. Dowd, Gal Luft, and Anne Korin.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2005
• Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  The Obama Administration recently released this report, which outlines the United States' path towards better energy security. This report comes at a time when the price of crude oil is at its highest point since 2003. Which has a significant effect on the U.S. economy, considering that transportation is the second costliest expense for most American households. Main goals laid out in the report include: Expand Safe and Responsible Domestic Oil and Gas Development and Production. Lead the World Toward Safer and More Secure Energy Supplies. Reduce Consumers Costs at the Pump with More Efficient Cars and Trucks. Cut Energy Bills with More Efficient Homes and Buildings. Harness America's Clean Energy Potential so that 80 percent of electricity will come from clean energy sources by 2035. Win the future through Clean Energy Research and Development. Lead by Example so that the Federal Government models best practices and clean energy technologies.

  United States. White House Office

  2011-03-30
• Serial No. 111-3: The Climate Crisis: National Security, Public Health, and Economic Threats, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, February 12, 2009

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Edward Markey: "Today's hearing is the first of many the subcommittee will hold in the coming weeks as we work with Chairman Waxman and Ranking Members Barton and Upton to pass a comprehensive climate and energy piece of legislation out of committee by Memorial Day. We begin this process by hearing from a distinguished panel about the grave threats that global warming poses to national and global security, public health, and economic growth. These witnesses are here in part to purge whatever complacency remains after 8 years of climate policy founded on denial, obfuscation, and delay. The American people are ready for bold action, and they expect Congress to pass legislation that will create jobs, save consumers money, and protect the planet. There is now a robust scientific consensus that global warming is happening, that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible, and that if we fail to dramatically reduce those emissions starting now, catastrophic impacts will result. This leads to the real question in this debate: Can we afford not to act? The human and economic costs of continued delay are staggering, whether it is villages falling into the sea in Alaska, flooding in the Midwest, droughts becoming harder, longer, and more frequent in the south, or crop failure and water scarcity feeding a genocide in Sudan. We know that changes brought on or exacerbated by human-induced climate change are happening. These impacts will threaten national and global security, endanger public health, and damage the American economy." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Edward J. Markey, Fred Upton, Henry A. Waxman, Cliff Stearns, John D. Dingell, Ed Whitfield, Michael F. Doyle, G.K. Butterfield, Steve Scalise, Jane Harman, Joe Barton, Doris O. Matsui, Michael C. Burgess, Jay Inslee, Joseph R. Pitts, Frank Pallone, Jr., Tammy Baldwin, Peter Welch, Eliot Engel, Jerry McNerney, Lois Capps, Donna M. Christensen, Gene Green, Daniel Schrag, Gordon R. Sullivan, R. James Woolsey, Kristie L. Ebi, Frank Ackerman, Patrick J. Michaels, and James L. Connaughton.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2011
• Budget Hearing: Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nuclear Nonproliferation and Naval Reactors, Hearing Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, April 3, 2014

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony is from the April 3, 2014 budget hearing, "Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nuclear Nonproliferation and Naval Reactors" before the Subcommittee on Defense of the House Committee on Appropriations. From the opening statement of Mike Simpson: "The fiscal year 2015 budget request for Naval Reactors is $1.377 billion, an increase of $282 million or 26% over last year's enacted level. This afternoon, we will consider some of the details of that request and how those activities are needed even during this period of budget austerity. The budget request for the NNSA's [National Nuclear Security Administration] Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is $1.555 billion, a decrease of $398 million or 20% from last year's enacted level. "Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Mike Simpson, Bruce Held, Anna Harington, and John M. Richardson.

  United States. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations

  2014-04-03
• Deepwater Horizon: Coast Guard and Interior Could Improve Their Offshore Energy Inspection Programs, Statement of Stephen L. Caldwell, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, and Frank Rusco, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The April 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, a mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU), showed that the consequences of an incident on an offshore energy facility can be significant. A key way to ensure that offshore energy facilities are meeting applicable security, safety, and production standards is through conducting periodic inspections of the facilities. The Coast Guard and the Department of the Interior (Interior) share oversight responsibility for offshore energy facilities. The Coast Guard is to conduct security inspections of such facilities, whereas based on an agreement between the two agencies, Interior is to conduct safety compliance inspections on some offshore facilities on behalf of the Coast Guard as well as its own inspections to verify production. This testimony addresses: (1) the extent to which the Coast Guard has conducted security inspections of offshore energy facilities, and what additional actions are needed; (2) the extent to which Interior has conducted inspections of offshore energy facilities, including those on behalf of the Coast Guard, and challenges it faces in conducting such inspections; and (3) the Coast Guard's oversight authority of MODUs. This testimony is based on GAO [Government Accountability Office] products issued from September 2008 through October 2011. GAO has previously recommended that the Coast Guard develop policies and procedures to monitor and track annual security inspections for offshore energy facilities and that Interior address its human capital challenges. The Coast Guard and Interior agreed."

  United States. Government Accountability Office

  2011-11-02
• U.S. Energy Security: Enhancing Partnerships with Mexico and Canada, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, March 14, 2013

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the March 14, 2013 hearing on "U.S. Energy Security: Enhancing Partnerships with Mexico and Canada," held before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. From the opening statement of Ed Royce: "U.S. energy security has become part of national security. This also has been with our partnership here in this hemisphere with Canada and with Mexico. And I appreciate the leadership here on this critical issue at a very critical time. Energy security is the lynchpin for our economic growth. Jobs are being created in the energy industry here in the United States, and companies, both American and foreign, often prefer to manufacture in the U.S. because of our consistent and well-priced electrical power supply. But I will share with you, energy prices here are about 20 percent less than they are in Asia. This is one of the few areas where we are truly competitive. Unless we are careful, we could inverse that equation. Unless we are careful, that pipeline which we are discussing today could go west to Vancouver in order to take that petroleum to Asia. That would make manufacturing in Asia even more of a challenge for our competition here in the United States because it would inverse that equation and make energy cheaper in Asia than it is in the United States." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Lee Terry, Duncan Wood, Daniel R. Simmons, Kyle Isakower, Michael A. Levi, and Matt Salmon.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2013
• Nuclear Security: Weak Internal Controls Hamper Oversight of DOE's Security Program, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  The Department of Energy (DOE), overseer of the nation's nuclear weapons program, runs a broad range of plants and laboratories to carry out research, development, and production. Given the potentially devastating consequence of radiological sabotage or terrorism, tight security is a must at these facilities. Accordingly, DOE spends nearly $1 billion annually to protect them. GAO reviewed DOE's practice of granting exceptions to the agency's safeguards and security orders. Approved exceptions have ranged from exceptions to administration requirements, involving, for example, the labeling or marking of classified documents, to more substantive exceptions involving the inventory or storage of special nuclear materials. This report (1) cites the number of exceptions that have been approved, (2) determines whether DOE's written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving exceptions have been followed, and (3) describes the kind of internal control system used for monitoring and following up on individual exceptions.

  United States. General Accounting Office

  1992-06-29
• Evaluation Report: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Unclassified Cyber Security Program - 2012

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is an independent agency within the Department of Energy responsible for, among other things, regulating interstate transmission of the Nation's electricity, natural gas and oil. In addition, the Commission licenses and inspects private, municipal and state hydroelectric projects. To achieve its mission, the Commission relies on a wide range of information technology (IT) resources to help ensure that rates and terms and conditions for the wholesale of electric energy and natural gas are just and reasonable, and promote the development of a safe, reliable and efficient energy infrastructure. As highlighted by recent cyber attacks on Federal entities, the information security threat landscape continues to change, and vulnerable IT resources continue to be exploited. To help protect against continuing cyber security threats, the Commission estimated that it would expend approximately $5.3 million during Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 to secure its IT assets, a 39 percent increase from FY 2011. 'The Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002' (FISMA) established requirements for Federal agencies regarding the management and oversight of information security risks and to ensure that IT resources were adequately protected. As directed by FISMA, the Office of Inspector General conducted an independent evaluation of the Commission's unclassified cyber security program to determine whether it adequately protected data and information systems. This report presents the results of our evaluation for FY 2012."

  United States. Department of Energy. Office of Inspector General

  2012-11
• S. Hrg. 108-351: U.S. Energy Security: West Africa and Latin America: Hearing before the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Eighth Congress, First Session, October 21, 2003

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  Because U.S. energy independence is not achievable in the near term, America needs a comprehensive energy policy that recognizes the realities of our interconnected world and the linkages between political stability and energy security. Those realities vary from region to region. We cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach to this effort. The first hearing in April of this year on energy security focused on an overview of global energy security issues. The second hearing focused specifically on Russia and the Caspian Sea region. This hearing focuses on the impact of recent developments in West Africa, specifically in Liberia and Nigeria, and in Latin America, especially in Venezuela and Mexico. Witnesses in this hearing also comment on how the oil strikes against President Chavez in Venezuela have affected U.S. energy policy and how the geostrategic implications of continued political volatility in Venezuela could affect our economic and political interest in South America. Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: John R. Brodman, David L. Goldwyn, Chuck Hagel, Matthew T. McManus, Marina Ottaway, and J. Robinson West.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2004
• Roadmap to Secure Energy Delivery Systems

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "ile much progress has been made, the public and private partners are keenly aware that there is more work to do with today's rapid pace of change and dynamic energy delivery systems landscape. The Energy Sector Control Systems Working Group (ESCSWG) collaborated with energy sector stakeholders to update the Roadmap in four phases: [1] Over-the-Horizon Analysis: On July 7, 2009, nearly 20 asset owners, government leaders, vendors, and researchers convened to examine the solid foundation of the 2006 Roadmap-the vision and goal areas-and provided recommendations to better align the framework with the wide range of complex energy delivery systems security needs the sector will need to address today and in the future. [2] Roadmap Update Workshop: On September 2-3, 2009, more than 80 asset owners and operators, CIOs, researchers, technology developers, security specialists, and vendors renewed their commitment to the industry's vision and partnership efforts and tackled the most persistent challenges: vulnerability disclosure, technology gaps and advancements, innovative partnerships, and measuring progress. Participants defined the issues and identified a set of prioritized solutions the public-private partnership can act on immediately. [3] Roadmap Technical Review Workshop: On November 18, 2009, 12 subject matter experts convened to clarify the technical challenges and recommend additional milestones to ensure the sector has a clear path to achieving Roadmap goals. [4] Roadmap Review: The Working Group synthesized the results of the above efforts to update the 2006 Roadmap and create a draft Roadmap. [...] The Roadmap to Secure Energy Delivery Systems was created to guide and align public and private efforts to achieve and sustain the energy sector's vision."

  United States. Department of Energy

  2011-01
• DOE's Nuclear Weapons Complex: Challenges to Safety, Security, and Taxpayer Stewardship, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, September 12, 2012

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the September 12, 2012 hearing on "DOE's [Department of Energy] Nuclear Weapons Complex: Challenges to Safety, Security, and Taxpayer Stewardship" held before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. From the opening statement of Cliff Stearns: "Today's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation will review challenges to safety, security, and taxpayer stewardship in the Department of Energy's nuclear weapon complex. DOE is responsible for securing and maintaining the most dangerous materials on the planet, including nuclear warheads. This is one area that must have effective oversight. This committee, principally through the work of this subcommittee, has a long history of bipartisan scrutiny of the Department of Energy's oversight and management of the contractors that are charged with running DOE's nuclear weapons programs and operations." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Cliff Stearns, Diana DeGette, Joe Barton, Lee Terry, Marsha Blackburn, Henry A. Waxman, Fred Upton, Daniel B. Poneman, Thomas P. D'Agostino, Glenn S. Podonsky, Mark E. Gaffigan, and Gregory H. Friedman.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2013
• Nuclear Nonproliferation: Comprehensive U.S. Planning and Better Foreign Cooperation Needed to Secure Vulnerable Nuclear Materials Worldwide, Report to the Chairman and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "In April 2009, President Obama announced an international initiative to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide within 4 years. Nonproliferation programs administered by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) are working to secure nuclear materials in Russia and other countries. GAO [Government Accountability Office] assessed (1) U.S. governmentwide efforts to implement the President's 4-year nuclear material security initiative; (2) the status and challenges, if any, of NNSA's nuclear security programs in Russia; and (3) NNSA efforts to secure nuclear materials in countries other than Russia. To address these issues, GAO analyzed U.S. nuclear security strategies and plans and interviewed U.S. and Russian government officials. This report summarizes the findings of GAO's classified report on securing nuclear materials worldwide. [...]. GAO suggests that Congress consider extending the deadline for NNSA to complete Material Protection, Control, and Accounting (MPC&A) program activities in Russia. GAO recommends that the Department of Energy (DOE) and NNSA take several actions regarding three nonproliferation program efforts in Russia, such as clarifying the remaining scope and costs of MPC&A work in Russia. GAO also recommends that the National Security Council (NSC) lead interagency development of a more detailed implementation plan for the President's 4-year initiative. DOE and NNSA agreed with the recommendations. NSC did not comment on GAO's recommendations."

  United States. Government Accountability Office

  2010-12-15
• Maritime Security: Coast Guard Should Conduct Required Inspections of Offshore Energy Infrastructure, Report to Congressional Requesters

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Congressional interest in the security of offshore energy infrastructure has increased because of the lives lost and the substantial damages that resulted from the Deepwater Horizon incident in April 2010. The U.S. Coast Guard-a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)-is the lead federal agency for maritime security, including the security of offshore energy infrastructure. The Coast Guard oversees two main types of offshore energy infrastructure-facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and deepwater ports. GAO [Government Accountability Office] was asked to examine (1) Coast Guard actions to ensure the security of OCS facilities and what additional actions, if any, are needed; (2) Coast Guard actions to ensure the security of deepwater ports and what additional actions, if any, are needed; and (3) what limitations in oversight authority, if any, the Coast Guard faces in ensuring the security of offshore energy infrastructure. GAO reviewed Coast Guard documents, such as inspection records, and relevant laws and regulations and interviewed Coast Guard inspectors and officials, including those at Coast Guard headquarters and the two Coast Guard districts that oversee all OCS facilities and deepwater ports that are subject to security requirements. GAO recommends that the Coast Guard develop policies or guidance to ensure that (1) annual security inspections are conducted at OCS facilities and (2) information entered into its database for both OCS facilities and deepwater ports is more useful for management. DHS and the Coast Guard concurred with these recommendations."

  United States. Government Accountability Office

  2011-10-28
• Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: H.R. 3050, Enhancing State Energy Security Planning and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2017

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate as ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 28, 2017. From the Document: "H.R. 3050 would authorize the appropriation of $90 million in each of fiscal years 2018 through 2022 for the Department of Energy (DOE) to provide financial and technical assistance to states for purposes of developing and implementing plans related to energy conservation. The bill would require that states' plans specify strategies for safeguarding energy-related infrastructure from physical and cybersecurity threats, mitigating the risk of disruptions to the supply of energy, and ensuring energy reliability. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO [Congressional Budget Office] estimates that implementing H.R. 3050 would cost $302 million over the 2018-2022 period; the remainder would spend in years after 2022. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3050 would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028."

  United States. Congressional Budget Office

  2017-07-17
• Canada's New Role in North American Energy Security

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Energy analysts have given renewed attention to Canada's position in the North American energy market since the September 11th attacks, because of fear that conflict might interrupt the flow of oil from the Middle East...While Canada is already the single major oil exporter to the United States (ahead of both Saudi Arabia and Venezuela), its production could double by 2010. Canada's rapidly increasing energy production has major implications both for hemispheric relations and for the United States' strategic position. In the aftermath of September 11th energy security has become a key concern for the United States. After the attacks many commentators argued that the United States relied too heavily on Middle Eastern sources of supply, and that this factor not only limited U.S. actions, but also obliged the U.S. to engage with regimes that it found to be distasteful if not dangerous. Newspaper columnists decried America's reliance on Saudi Arabia for energy, and some called for the United States to increase its energy self-sufficiency by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska to drilling. Richard Holbrook, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stated that Americans' "greatest single failure over the last twenty five years was our failure to reduce our dependence on foreign oil . . . which would have reduced the leverage of Saudi Arabia."1 Yet in fact the United States' energy position is now stronger than it appears, and there is reason to believe that it will improve in the future, because of the growing importance of Canada as a source of petroleum." - from Introduction

  William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies

  Smallman, Shawn C.

  2003
• Modernizing the Nuclear Security Enterprise: NNSA's Reviews of Budget Estimates and Decisions on Resource Trade-offs Need Strengthening, Report to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "NNSA [National Nuclear Security Administration], a semiautonomous agency within DOE [Department of Energy], is responsible for the nation's nuclear weapons, nonproliferation, and naval reactors programs. Since its inception in 2000, the agency has faced challenges in its ability to accurately identify the costs of major projects. In addition, both the DOE Inspector General, in 2003, and GAO [Government Accountability Office], in 2007, reported concerns with NNSA's PPBE [planning, programming, budgeting, and evaluation] process, specifically in how NNSA validates budget estimates and decides on resource allocations or trade-offs. GAO was asked to review how NNSA manages programming and budgeting through its PPBE process. GAO examined (1) the current structure of NNSA's PPBE process, (2) the extent to which NNSA reviews its budget estimates, and (3) how NNSA decides on resource trade-offs in its PPBE process. To carry out its work, GAO reviewed NNSA policies, instructions, guidance, and internal reports documenting the agency's PPBE process and interviewed NNSA, DOE, and M&O [management and operating] contractor officials. GAO recommends that, among other things, DOE update the departmental order for budget reviews, improve the formal process for reviewing budget estimates, and reinstitute an independent analytical capability. The agency agreed in principle with six recommendations but not with one to consolidate various integrated priority lists. GAO continues to believe this recommendation has merit as discussed in the report."

  United States. Government Accountability Office

  2012-07
• Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: A Summary of Major Provisions [December 21, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Energy Independence and Security Act (P.L. 110-140, H.R. 6) is an omnibus energy policy law that consists mainly of provisions designed to increase energy efficiency and the availability of renewable energy. This report describes the key provisions of the enacted law, summarizes the legislative action on H.R. 6, and provides a summary of the provisions under each of the titles in the law. The two most controversial provisions of H.R. 6 that were not included in the enacted law were the proposed Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) and most of the proposed tax provisions, which included repeal of tax subsidies for oil and gas and new incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Sissine, Fred J.

  2007-12-21
• Preemptive Energy Security: An Aggressive Approach to Meeting America's Requirements

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Global competition, declining resources, and domestic demand on resources have placed energy issues at the forefront of daily news. This situation highlights the incredible U.S. appetite for energy and tremendous reliance on foreign energy. The volatile nature of the world oil market not only places the U.S. economy at risk, but also jeopardizes America's security. The War on Terrorism has strained U.S. relations with many oil-producing states. Rapidly increasing crude oil demands by Asia add new competition for this resource. If foreign producers denied the United States oil, the effects could cripple the U.S. economy and would significantly impact security. The 2002 National Security Strategy acknowledges the importance of the nation's economy; however, there is no mention of the linkage of energy security and the economy. Until the United States commits to developing alternative forms of energy to gain independence from foreign oil, the United States remains vulnerable to volatile markets, global politics, and possible interventions of non-state players. Current policy limits U.S. action to diplomatic economic and information efforts to maintain access to oil. This Strategic Research Project analyzes the need to change the National Security Strategy to advocate the use of military force to guarantee access to foreign oil sources."

  Army War College (U.S.)

  Tewksbury, Dennis D.

  2006-03-10
• Nuclear Nonproliferation: IAEA Has Strengthened Its Safeguards and Nuclear Security Programs, but Weaknesses Need to Be Addressed, Report to Congressional Requesters

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) safeguards system has been a cornerstone of U.S. efforts to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation since the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was adopted in 1970. IAEA has strengthened its safeguards system and increased efforts to combat nuclear terrorism by helping countries secure nuclear and radioactive material and facilities. IAEA has taken steps to strengthen safeguards by more aggressively seeking assurances that countries have not engaged in clandestine nuclear activities, but the agency still cannot be certain that countries are not developing secret weapons programs. In a radical departure from the past practice of only verifying the peaceful use of a country's declared nuclear material at declared facilities, IAEA has begun to develop the capability to independently evaluate all aspects of a country's nuclear activities by, among other things, conducting more intrusive inspections and collecting and analyzing environmental samples to detect traces of nuclear material at facilities and other locations. In addition, IAEA is trying to improve the efficiency of its efforts by applying integrated safeguards, which could result in a reduction in the number of inspections in certain countries. This report (1) identifies the steps IAEA has taken to strengthen safeguards, (2) assesses the challenges in implementing strengthened safeguards, (3) identifies U.S. financial support for safeguards, and (4) describes IAEA's efforts to help secure nuclear material and facilities."

  United States. Government Accountability Office

  2005-10
• Securing U.S. Nuclear Materials: Poor Planning Has Complicated DOE's Plutonium Consolidation Efforts, Statement of Gene Aloise, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Plutonium is very hazardous to human health and the environment and requires extensive security because of its potential use in a nuclear weapon. The Department of Energy (DOE) stores about 50 metric tons of plutonium that is no longer needed by the United States for nuclear weapons. Some of this plutonium is in the form of contaminated metal, oxides, solutions, and residues remaining from the nuclear weapons production process. To improve security and reduce storage costs, DOE plans to establish enough storage capacity at its Savannah River Site (SRS) in the event it decides to consolidate its plutonium there until it can be permanently disposed of. GAO was asked to examine (1) the extent to which DOE can consolidate this plutonium at SRS and (2) SRSs capacity to monitor plutonium storage containers."

  United States. Government Accountability Office

  2005-10-07
• It's Time for a National Energy Security Strategy

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The United States has been unchallenged as the sole economic and military superpower in the world over the last 15 years. However, a near decade long volatility in energy markets has led some Americans to question whether the U.S. can preserve that standing in the world. Colonel Greg Wright argues that what is needed to retain our military and economic superpower advantage is a new, overarching, United States National Energy Security Strategy. This new National Energy Security Strategy should set the strict goal of making the United States energy independent by 2020; its essential components should include diversifying and increasing energy supplies, increasing conservation, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and modernizing energy distribution and production systems."

  Army War College (U.S.)

  Wright, George G.

  2008-03-15
• Fact Sheet: U.S.-India Green Partnership to Address Energy Security, Climate Change, and Food Security [November 24, 2009]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This factsheet holds information regarding President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Green Partnership, and reaffirms "their countries' strong commitment to [...] combat climate change, ensur[es] their mutual energy security, [and their work] towards global food security, and building a clean energy economy that will drive investment, job creation, and economic growth throughout the 21st century." Prime Minister Singh and President Obama agreed to strengthen U.S.-India cooperation several issues during their meeting including: clean energy, climate change, and food security by launching" several initiatives discussed in this November 24, 2009 press release.

  United States. Office of the White House Press Secretary

  2009-11-24
• Report on Audit of the Department of Energy's Site Safeguards and Security Plans

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Department's Safeguards and Security program is designed to provide appropriate, efficient, and effective protection of the Department's nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, facilities, and classified information. Department of Energy [DOE] policy, contained in DOE orders, specifies that Departmental interests shall be protected against a range of threats through the development of Site Safeguards and Security Plans (SSSPs). The SSSP is intended to depict the existing condition of safeguards and security site-wide and by facility, establish improvement priorities, and provide an estimate of the resources required to carry out the necessary improvements. The purpose of the audit was to determine if the Office of Safeguards and Security was using revised SSSP guidance as ldefacton policy to evaluate and approve SSSPs, and to determine if the new requirements established by the guidance were justified. The attached report is being sent to inform you of our findings and recommendations. […] We recommended that the Office of Nonproliferation and National Security discontinue using guidance as policy for evaluation, approval, and concurrence of Site Safeguards and Security Plans until they have been formally coordinated and concurred on by program and field elements. We also recommended that all proposed policy changes and guidance, when used as policy, be coordinated with affected program and field offices through the Departmental Directives System. Although the Office of Nonproliferation and National Security agreed that guidance should not be used as policy, they have not agreed to implement the recommendations and stated that they will continue to use the guides. In addition, they did not agree that the guidance issued by their office established requirements or that the new security requirements were unjustified."

  United States. Department of Energy. Office of Inspector General

  1995-12-01
• Serial No. 107-13: Protecting America's Critical Infrastructure: How Secure are Government Computer Systems? Hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, First Session, April 5, 2001

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of James C. Greenwood: "Today, the subcommittee holds a hearing to assess the security of government computer systems. In particular, we will assess how well or how poorly they are protecting our most critical cyberinfrastructures and operations from the threat of disgruntled insiders, hackers, criminals, terrorists, and rogue nation-states. Over the past 2 years this committee has conducted extensive oversight of computer security at particular government agencies, most notably EPA, the Department of Energy, and to a lesser extent, FDA and the Department of Commerce. Our reviews consistently have found poor computer security planning and management and a general lack of compliance with existing requirements of law and policy. We also found that, with few exceptions, the agencies were not testing their own systems to determine whether their security plans and policies were as effective in practice as they looked on paper. And we found that whenever real testing of agency systems was conducted numerous significant and easily exploitable vulnerabilities were almost always discovered. Why is this so important? Because as we will see and hear today, the threats and attacks on government systems are increasing and the technology used to perpetrate such attack is becoming both more sophisticated and more generally available. An expert team from the Department of Energy will demonstrate this morning how such attacks are conducted, using freely available software tools found on the Internet, and they will show us the results from some recent real-world testing the team conducted at several DOE sites." Statements, letters, and material submitted for the record include those of the following: Robert F. Dacey, Ronald L. Dick, Tom Noonan, Glenn S. Podonsky, Jason Bellone, Karen Matthews, Brent Huston, Brad Peterson, and John S. Tritak, and Jason Kemper, III.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2001
• Distributed Energy Resource Cybersecurity Framework Best Practices

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Introduction: "Current cybersecurity challenges for distributed energy resources (DERs) stem from the integration of various systems and the cyber-physical security concerns they bring. Although frameworks exist for industrial control systems and other energy systems, a simple guided tool that can prioritize recommended actions for controls specific to DERs is lacking. Additionally, the novelty of the field has made it difficult to create a standardized procedure for DERs with cybersecurity in mind. In response to this critical need to address cybersecurity risk management, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has developed a framework and accompanying web application known as the Distributed Energy Resources Cybersecurity Framework (DERCF). [...] This document provides a guide to cybersecurity best practices identified by technical research and site visits where the framework was used to assess the cybersecurity posture of DER systems."

  National Renewable Energy Laboratory (U.S.)

  Sanghvi, Anuj; Hauck, Konrad; Powell, Charisa . . .

  2020-01