You limited your search to:

 Collection: Congressional Research Service Reports
Energy Policy: Comprehensive Energy Legislation (H.R. 6, S. 10) in the 109th Congress
Conferees on H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, began meeting July 14, 2005, and are predicting that the conference will be completed July 25. The Senate passed its version of the bill June 28, and the House passed its version April 21. The Senate and House bills are similar, but major differences exist, including the following areas: ethanol and methyl tertiary-butyl ether, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, electricity restructuring, renewable energy, climate change, tax provisions, outer continental shelf, and the siting of LNG terminals digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc83879/
The European Union's Energy Security Challenges
This report examines some of Europe’s critical energy challenges and how the EU is attempting to address those challenges through an effort to coordinate a European energy strategy. It also includes an overview of broader transatlantic energy security cooperation. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9521/
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Estimated Allocations
This report discusses the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). This report contains two tables that show estimated LIHEAP allocations to the states. Table 1 shows state allocations at various levels: (1) the amount appropriated for FY2006, (2) the amount appropriated for FY2007, (3) the amount appropriated in FY2008, and (4) estimated state allocations based on the amount requested by the President for FY2009. Table 2 shows estimated state allocations at other hypothetical appropriations increments. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc94191/
Energy Policy: Legislative Proposals in the 109th Congress
While introduction of energy legislation in the 109th Congress is pending, it remains unclear what its course may be. Some believe that the results of the fall 2004 election have heightened prospects for opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas development, and the Republican leadership has indicated that ANWR is to be included in the budget resolution that will come before Congress. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici has indicated that the committee will mark up a comprehensive bill in February. However, Senator Domenici also expressed openness to considering individual bills; he and others are interested in legislation to establish a long-term leasing plan for natural gas resources. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7116/
Energy Policy: Comprehensive Energy Legislation (H.R. 6) in the 109th Congress
The House passed H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, on April 21, 2005 (249-183). The legislation includes a “safe harbor” provision to protect methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) refiners from product liability suits, which was retained after a close vote on an amendment to drop the language (213-219). In the 108th Congress, there was opposition to this provision in the Senate. It is unclear how its inclusion may affect Senate passage of an energy bill in the 109th Congress. House Republicans have indicated that a compromise will be sought to satisfy the other body. Language in the House-passed bill would also authorize opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to exploration and development. An amendment to delete the ANWR provisions from H.R. 6 was defeated (200-231). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7117/
Energy Policy: Legislative Proposals in the 109th Congress
While introduction of energy legislation in the 109th Congress is pending, it remains unclear what its course may be. Some believe that the results of the fall 2004 election have heightened prospects for opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas development, and the Republican leadership has indicated that ANWR is to be included in the budget resolution that will come before Congress. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici has indicated that the committee will mark up a comprehensive bill in February. However, Senator Domenici also expressed openness to considering individual bills; he and others are interested in legislation to establish a long-term leasing plan for natural gas resources. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7118/
Energy Policy: Comprehensive Energy Legislation (H.R. 6) in the 109th Congress
The House passed H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, on April 21, 2005 (249-183). The legislation includes a “safe harbor” provision to protect methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) refiners from product liability suits, which was retained after a close vote on an amendment to drop the language (213-219). In the 108th Congress, there was opposition to this provision in the Senate. It is unclear how its inclusion may affect Senate passage of an energy bill in the 109th Congress. House Republicans have indicated that a compromise will be sought to satisfy the other body. Language in the House-passed bill would also authorize opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to exploration and development. An amendment to delete the ANWR provisions from H.R. 6 was defeated (200-231). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7119/
Energy Policy: Comprehensive Energy Legislation (H.R. 6, S. 10) in the 109th Congress
The House passed H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, on April 21, 2005 (249-183). The legislation includes a “safe harbor” provision to protect methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) refiners from product liability suits, which was retained after a close vote on an amendment to drop the language (213-219). In the 108th Congress, there was opposition to this provision in the Senate. It is unclear how its inclusion may affect Senate passage of an energy bill in the 109th Congress. House Republicans have indicated that a compromise will be sought to satisfy the other body. Language in the House-passed bill would also authorize opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to exploration and development. An amendment to delete the ANWR provisions from H.R. 6 was defeated (200-231). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7120/
Energy Policy: Comprehensive Energy Legislation (H.R. 6, S. 10) in the 109th Congress
The House passed H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, on April 21, 2005 (249-183). The legislation includes a “safe harbor” provision to protect methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) refiners from product liability suits, which was retained after a close vote on an amendment to drop the language (213-219). In the 108th Congress, there was opposition to this provision in the Senate. It is unclear how its inclusion may affect Senate passage of an energy bill in the 109th Congress. House Republicans have indicated that a compromise will be sought to satisfy the other body. Language in the House-passed bill would also authorize opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to exploration and development. An amendment to delete the ANWR provisions from H.R. 6 was defeated (200-231). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7121/
Energy Policy: Comprehensive Energy Legislation (H.R. 6, S. 10) in the 109th Congress
The House passed H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, on April 21, 2005 (249-183). The legislation includes a “safe harbor” provision to protect methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) refiners from product liability suits, which was retained after a close vote on an amendment to drop the language (213-219). In the 108th Congress, there was opposition to this provision in the Senate. It is unclear how its inclusion may affect Senate passage of an energy bill in the 109th Congress. House Republicans have indicated that a compromise will be sought to satisfy the other body. Language in the House-passed bill would also authorize opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to exploration and development. An amendment to delete the ANWR provisions from H.R. 6 was defeated (200-231). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7122/
Energy Policy: Comprehensive Energy Legislation (H.R. 6) in the 109th Congress
The House passed H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, on April 21, 2005 (249-183). The legislation includes a “safe harbor” provision to protect methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) refiners from product liability suits, which was retained after a close vote on an amendment to drop the language (213-219). In the 108th Congress, there was opposition to this provision in the Senate. It is unclear how its inclusion may affect Senate passage of an energy bill in the 109th Congress. House Republicans have indicated that a compromise will be sought to satisfy the other body. Language in the House-passed bill would also authorize opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to exploration and development. An amendment to delete the ANWR provisions from H.R. 6 was defeated (200-231). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7123/
Energy Policy: Comprehensive Energy Legislation (H.R. 6) in the 109th Congress
The House passed H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, on April 21, 2005 (249-183). The legislation includes a “safe harbor” provision to protect methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) refiners from product liability suits, which was retained after a close vote on an amendment to drop the language (213-219). In the 108th Congress, there was opposition to this provision in the Senate. It is unclear how its inclusion may affect Senate passage of an energy bill in the 109th Congress. House Republicans have indicated that a compromise will be sought to satisfy the other body. Language in the House-passed bill would also authorize opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to exploration and development. An amendment to delete the ANWR provisions from H.R. 6 was defeated (200-231). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6632/
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1652/
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2620/
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2621/
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2622/
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4431/
Energy Policy: Setting the Stage for the Current Debate
The Bush Administration issued its plan for a national energy policy on May 16, 2001. The plan was controversial, characterized by some as leaner on conservation and renewables than Democratic proposals, and predisposed to trade off environmental considerations to increase supply. Comprehensive energy legislation was introduced in the Senate by both parties by late March (S. 388, S. 389, S. 596, S. 597). Bills reported by several House committees (H.R. 2436, H.R. 2460, H.R. 2511, and H.R. 2587) were combined in a single bill, H.R. 4, passed by the House, August 1, 2001. The House version of H.R. 4 would require a 5 billion gallon reduction in light-duty truck and SUV fuel consumption and would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to leasing. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2649/
Energy Policy: Setting the Stage for the Current Debate
The Bush Administration issued its plan for a national energy policy on May 16, 2001. The plan was controversial, characterized by some as leaner on conservation and renewables than Democratic proposals, and predisposed to trade off environmental considerations to increase supply. Comprehensive energy legislation was introduced in the Senate by both parties by late March (S. 388, S. 389, S. 596, S. 597). Bills reported by several House committees (H.R. 2436, H.R. 2460, H.R. 2511, and H.R. 2587) were combined in a single bill, H.R. 4, passed by the House, August 1, 2001. The House version of H.R. 4 would require a 5 billion gallon reduction in light-duty truck and SUV fuel consumption and would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to leasing. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2650/
Energy Policy: Setting the Stage for the Current Debate
The Bush Administration issued its plan for a national energy policy on May 16, 2001. The plan was controversial, characterized by some as leaner on conservation and renewables than Democratic proposals, and predisposed to trade off environmental considerations to increase supply. Comprehensive energy legislation was introduced in the Senate by both parties by late March (S. 388, S. 389, S. 596, S. 597). Bills reported by several House committees (H.R. 2436, H.R. 2460, H.R. 2511, and H.R. 2587) were combined in a single bill, H.R. 4, passed by the House, August 1, 2001. The House version of H.R. 4 would require a 5 billion gallon reduction in light-duty truck and SUV fuel consumption and would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to leasing. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2651/
Energy Policy: Setting the Stage for the Current Debate
The Bush Administration issued its plan for a national energy policy on May 16, 2001. The plan was controversial, characterized by some as leaner on conservation and renewables than Democratic proposals, and predisposed to trade off environmental considerations to increase supply. Comprehensive energy legislation was introduced in the Senate by both parties by late March (S. 388, S. 389, S. 596, S. 597). Bills reported by several House committees (H.R. 2436, H.R. 2460, H.R. 2511, and H.R. 2587) were combined in a single bill, H.R. 4, passed by the House, August 1, 2001. The House version of H.R. 4 would require a 5 billion gallon reduction in light-duty truck and SUV fuel consumption and would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to leasing. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2652/
Energy Policy: Setting the Stage for the Current Debate
The Bush Administration issued its plan for a national energy policy on May 16, 2001. The plan was controversial, characterized by some as leaner on conservation and renewables than Democratic proposals, and predisposed to trade off environmental considerations to increase supply. Comprehensive energy legislation was introduced in the Senate by both parties by late March (S. 388, S. 389, S. 596, S. 597). Bills reported by several House committees (H.R. 2436, H.R. 2460, H.R. 2511, and H.R. 2587) were combined in a single bill, H.R. 4, passed by the House, August 1, 2001. The House version of H.R. 4 would require a 5 billion gallon reduction in light-duty truck and SUV fuel consumption and would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to leasing. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2653/
Energy Policy: Setting the Stage for the Current Debate
The Bush Administration issued its plan for a national energy policy on May 16, 2001. The plan was controversial, characterized by some as leaner on conservation and renewables than Democratic proposals, and predisposed to trade off environmental considerations to increase supply. Comprehensive energy legislation was introduced in the Senate by both parties by late March (S. 388, S. 389, S. 596, S. 597). Bills reported by several House committees (H.R. 2436, H.R. 2460, H.R. 2511, and H.R. 2587) were combined in a single bill, H.R. 4, passed by the House, August 1, 2001. The House version of H.R. 4 would require a 5 billion gallon reduction in light-duty truck and SUV fuel consumption and would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to leasing. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2654/
Energy Policy: Setting the Stage for the Current Debate
The Bush Administration issued its plan for a national energy policy on May 16, 2001. Comprehensive energy legislation was introduced in the Senate by both parties by late March (S. 388, S. 389, S. 596, S. 597). Bills reported by several House committees (H.R. 2436, H.R. 2460, H.R. 2511, and H.R. 2587) were combined in a single bill, H.R. 4, passed by the House, August 1, 2001. The bill includes provisions that would require a reduction in light-duty truck and SUV fuel consumption, and would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to leasing. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1660/
Energy Policy: Setting the Stage for the Current Debate
The Bush Administration issued its plan for a national energy policy on May 16, 2001. The plan was controversial, characterized by some as leaner on conservation and renewables than Democratic proposals, and predisposed to trade off environmental considerations to increase supply. Comprehensive energy legislation was introduced in the Senate by both parties by late March (S. 388, S. 389, S. 596, S. 597). Bills reported by several House committees (H.R. 2436, H.R. 2460, H.R. 2511, and H.R. 2587) were combined in a single bill, H.R. 4, passed by the House, August 1, 2001. The House version of H.R. 4 would require a 5 billion gallon reduction in light-duty truck and SUV fuel consumption and would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to leasing. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2647/
Energy Policy: Setting the Stage for the Current Debate
The Bush Administration issued its plan for a national energy policy on May 16, 2001. The plan was controversial, characterized by some as leaner on conservation and renewables than Democratic proposals, and predisposed to trade off environmental considerations to increase supply. Comprehensive energy legislation was introduced in the Senate by both parties by late March (S. 388, S. 389, S. 596, S. 597). Bills reported by several House committees (H.R. 2436, H.R. 2460, H.R. 2511, and H.R. 2587) were combined in a single bill, H.R. 4, passed by the House, August 1, 2001. The House version of H.R. 4 would require a 5 billion gallon reduction in light-duty truck and SUV fuel consumption and would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to leasing. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2648/
Electric Power Storage
This report summarizes the technical, regulatory, and policy issues that surround implementation of electric power storage. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc689300/
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues
Energy security, a major driver of federal energy efficiency programs in the past, came back into play as oil and gas prices rose late in the year 2000. The terrorist attack in 2001 and the Iraq war have led to heightened concern for energy security and raised further concerns about the vulnerability of energy infrastructure and the need for alternative fuels. Further, the 2001 power shortages in California, the 2003 northeast-midwest power blackout, and continuing high natural gas prices have brought a renewed emphasis on energy efficiency and energy conservation to dampen electricity, oil, and natural gas demand. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4443/
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues
In the 108th Congress, debate over energy efficiency programs has focused on budget, oil, natural gas, and electricity issues, and provisions in the omnibus energy policy bill, S. 2095, H.R. 6, and S. 14/S. 1149. The Bush Administration’s FY2005 budget request for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Efficiency Program sought $875.9 million, including $543.9 for R&D and $332.0 million for grants. In the first session, the omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6) had several significant tax and regulatory measures for energy efficiency. It did not pass the Senate due to concerns about cost and an MTBE “safe harbor” provision. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4444/
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues
In the 108th Congress, debate over energy efficiency programs has focused on budget, oil, natural gas, and electricity issues, and provisions in the omnibus energy policy bill, S. 2095, H.R. 6, and S. 14/S. 1149. The Bush Administration’s FY2005 budget request for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Efficiency Program sought $875.9 million, including $543.9 for R&D and $332.0 million for grants. In the first session, the omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6) had several significant tax and regulatory measures for energy efficiency. It did not pass the Senate due to concerns about cost and an MTBE “safe harbor” provision. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4445/
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues
Energy security, a major driver of federal energy efficiency programs in the past, came back into play as oil and gas prices rose late in the year 2000. The terrorist attack in 2001 and the Iraq war have led to heightened concern for energy security and raised further concerns about the vulnerability of energy infrastructure and the need for alternative fuels. Further, the 2001 power shortages in California, the 2003 northeast-midwest power blackout, and continuing high natural gas prices have brought a renewed emphasis on energy efficiency and energy conservation to dampen electricity, oil, and natural gas demand. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4446/
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues
In the 108th Congress, debate over energy efficiency programs has focused on budget, oil, natural gas, and electricity issues, and provisions in the omnibus energy policy bill, S. 2095, H.R. 6, and S. 14/S. 1149. The Bush Administration’s FY2005 budget request for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Efficiency Program sought $875.9 million, including $543.9 for R&D and $332.0 million for grants. In the first session, the omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6) had several significant tax and regulatory measures for energy efficiency. It did not pass the Senate due to concerns about cost and an MTBE “safe harbor” provision. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4447/
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues
In the 108th Congress, debate over energy efficiency programs has focused on budget, oil, natural gas, and electricity issues, and provisions in the omnibus energy policy bill, S. 2095, H.R. 6, and S. 14/S. 1149. The Bush Administration’s FY2005 budget request for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Efficiency Program sought $875.9 million, including $543.9 for R&D and $332.0 million for grants. In the first session, the omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6) had several significant tax and regulatory measures for energy efficiency. It did not pass the Senate due to concerns about cost and an MTBE “safe harbor” provision. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4448/
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues
Energy security, a major driver of federal energy efficiency programs in the past, came back into play as oil and gas prices rose late in the year 2000. The terrorist attack in 2001 and the Iraq war have led to heightened concern for energy security and raised further concerns about the vulnerability of energy infrastructure and the need for alternative fuels. Further, the 2001 power shortages in California, the 2003 northeast-midwest power blackout, and continuing high natural gas prices have brought a renewed emphasis on energy efficiency and energy conservation to dampen electricity, oil, and natural gas demand. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4449/
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues
Energy security, a major driver of federal energy efficiency programs in the past, came back into play as oil and gas prices rose late in the year 2000. The terrorist attack in 2001 and the Iraq war have led to heightened concern for energy security and raised further concerns about the vulnerability of energy infrastructure and the need for alternative fuels. Further, the 2001 power shortages in California, the 2003 northeast-midwest power blackout, and continuing high natural gas prices have brought a renewed emphasis on energy efficiency and energy conservation to dampen electricity, oil, and natural gas demand. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4450/
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues
In the 108th Congress, debate over energy efficiency programs has focused on budget, oil, natural gas, and electricity issues, and provisions in the omnibus energy policy bill, S. 2095, H.R. 6, and S. 14/S. 1149. The Bush Administration’s FY2005 budget request for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Efficiency Program sought $875.9 million, including $543.9 for R&D and $332.0 million for grants. In the first session, the omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6) had several significant tax and regulatory measures for energy efficiency. It did not pass the Senate due to concerns about cost and an MTBE “safe harbor” provision. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5870/
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues
Energy security, a major driver of federal energy efficiency programs in the past, came back into play as oil and gas prices rose late in the year 2000. Also, the electricity shortages in California have brought a new emphasis to the role that energy efficiency and energy conservation may play in dampening electricity demand. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1656/
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues
In the 108th Congress, debate over energy efficiency programs has focused on budget, oil, natural gas, and electricity issues, and provisions in the omnibus energy policy bill, S. 2095, H.R. 6, and S. 14/S. 1149. The Bush Administration’s FY2005 budget request for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Efficiency Program sought $875.9 million, including $543.9 for R&D and $332.0 million for grants. In the first session, the omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6) had several significant tax and regulatory measures for energy efficiency. It did not pass the Senate due to concerns about cost and an MTBE “safe harbor” provision. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2628/
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues
In the 108th Congress, debate over energy efficiency programs has focused on budget, oil, natural gas, and electricity issues, and provisions in the omnibus energy policy bill, S. 2095, H.R. 6, and S. 14/S. 1149. The Bush Administration’s FY2005 budget request for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Efficiency Program sought $875.9 million, including $543.9 for R&D and $332.0 million for grants. In the first session, the omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6) had several significant tax and regulatory measures for energy efficiency. It did not pass the Senate due to concerns about cost and an MTBE “safe harbor” provision. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2629/
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues
In the 108th Congress, debate over energy efficiency programs has focused on budget, oil, natural gas, and electricity issues, and provisions in the omnibus energy policy bill, S. 2095, H.R. 6, and S. 14/S. 1149. The Bush Administration’s FY2005 budget request for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Efficiency Program sought $875.9 million, including $543.9 for R&D and $332.0 million for grants. In the first session, the omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6) had several significant tax and regulatory measures for energy efficiency. It did not pass the Senate due to concerns about cost and an MTBE “safe harbor” provision. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2630/
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues
In the 108th Congress, debate over energy efficiency programs has focused on budget, oil, natural gas, and electricity issues, and provisions in the omnibus energy policy bill, S. 2095, H.R. 6, and S. 14/S. 1149. The Bush Administration’s FY2005 budget request for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Efficiency Program sought $875.9 million, including $543.9 for R&D and $332.0 million for grants. In the first session, the omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6) had several significant tax and regulatory measures for energy efficiency. It did not pass the Senate due to concerns about cost and an MTBE “safe harbor” provision. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2631/
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues
In the 108th Congress, debate over energy efficiency programs has focused on budget, oil, natural gas, and electricity issues, and provisions in the omnibus energy policy bill, S. 2095, H.R. 6, and S. 14/S. 1149. The Bush Administration’s FY2005 budget request for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Efficiency Program sought $875.9 million, including $543.9 for R&D and $332.0 million for grants. In the first session, the omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6) had several significant tax and regulatory measures for energy efficiency. It did not pass the Senate due to concerns about cost and an MTBE “safe harbor” provision. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2632/
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues
In the 108th Congress, debate over energy efficiency programs has focused on budget, oil, natural gas, and electricity issues, and provisions in the omnibus energy policy bill, S. 2095, H.R. 6, and S. 14/S. 1149. The Bush Administration’s FY2005 budget request for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Efficiency Program sought $875.9 million, including $543.9 for R&D and $332.0 million for grants. In the first session, the omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6) had several significant tax and regulatory measures for energy efficiency. It did not pass the Senate due to concerns about cost and an MTBE “safe harbor” provision. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2633/
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues
In the 108th Congress, debate over energy efficiency programs has focused on budget, oil, natural gas, and electricity issues, and provisions in the omnibus energy policy bill, S. 2095, H.R. 6, and S. 14/S. 1149. The Bush Administration’s FY2005 budget request for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Efficiency Program sought $875.9 million, including $543.9 for R&D and $332.0 million for grants. In the first session, the omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6) had several significant tax and regulatory measures for energy efficiency. It did not pass the Senate due to concerns about cost and an MTBE “safe harbor” provision. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2634/
Energy Policy Act of 2002: Summary of S.1766 as Introduced
The Energy Policy Act of 2002 (S. 1766) was introduced by Senate Majority Leader Daschle on December 5, 2001, and placed on the Senate Calendar for floor action. The bill is expected to be the primary vehicle for Senate debate on national energy policy. S. 1766 would further the trend of the past two decades towards competitive electric markets. Subtitle B of Title II of S. 1766 would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA), which makes certain multi-state utility holding companies subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Title II, Subtitle C of the bill would prospectively repeal Section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), which requires utilities to purchase electricity from certain small power producers and cogenerators of industrial heat and power. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2680/
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Authorization, Operation, and Drawdown Policy
This report looks at the history, purpose, and current status of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc96717/
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Authorization, Operation, and Drawdown Policy
This report looks at the history, purpose, and current status of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc96718/
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Authorization, Operation, and Drawdown Policy
This report looks at the history, purpose, and current status of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc86621/
Keeping America's Pipelines Safe and Secure: Key Issues for Congress
Nearly half a million miles of pipeline transporting natural gas, oil, and other hazardous liquids crisscross the United States. While an efficient and fundamentally safe means of transport, many pipelines carry materials with the potential to cause public injury and environmental damage. The nation's pipeline networks are also widespread and vulnerable to accidents and terrorist attack. As it oversees the federal pipeline safety program and the federal role in pipeline security, Congress may wish to assess how the various elements of U.S. pipeline safety and security fit together in the nation's overall strategy to protect transportation infrastructure. Pipeline safety and security necessarily involve many groups: federal agencies, oil and gas pipeline associations, large and small pipeline operators, and local communities. Reviewing how these groups work together to achieve common goals could be an oversight challenge for Congress. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc87161/
Keeping America’s Pipelines Safe and Secure: Key Issues for Congress
This report covers ways in which the 112th Congress can introduce relevant legislation to safeguard pipelines that transport natural gas, oil, and other hazardous liquids across the United States. While an efficient and fundamentally safe means of transport, many pipelines carry materials with the potential to cause public injury and environmental damage; the networks are also widespread and vulnerable to accidents and terrorist attack. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc98961/