You limited your search to:

 Collection: Congressional Research Service Reports
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/
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. 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 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. 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
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
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
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
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/metacrs4445/
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
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/metacrs2634/
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/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/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/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/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/metacrs2628/
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/
Transportation Fuel Taxes, Legislative Issues, and the Transportation Equity Act
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs643/
Electricity Restructuring Background: The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) increased competition in the electric generating sector by creating new entities that can generate and sell electricity at wholesale without being regulated as utilities under PUHCA. PURPA began to shift more regulatory responsibilities to the federal government, and EPACT continued that shift away from the states by creating new options for utilities and regulators to meet electricity demand. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs642/
MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking Water Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4434/
MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking Water Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4433/
MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking Water Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4432/
MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking Water Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2623/
MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking Water Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1653/
Electricity Restructuring: Comparison of S.1401, H.R. 655, H.R. 1230, S. 722, H.R. 1960, and S. 2287
Once considered the nation's most regulated industry, the electric utility industry is evolving into a more competitive environment. At the current time, the focus of this development is the generating sector, where the advent of new generating technologies, such as gas-fired combined cycle, has lowered both entry barriers to competitors of traditional utilities and lowered the marginal costs of those competitors below those of some traditional utilities. This technological advance has been combined with legislative initiatives, such as the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), to encourage the introduction of competitive forces into the electric generating sector. The questions now are whether further legislative action is desirable to encourage competition in the electric utility sector and how the transition between a comprehensive regulatory regime to a more competitive electric utility sector can be made with the least amount of economic and service disruption. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs641/
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund (LUST)
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs431/
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs959/
Transportation Fuel Taxes Early in the 105th Congress
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs429/
Disaster Mitigation Bills in the 106th Congress: H.R. 707, S. 1691 Compared
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act authorizes the President to declare that an emergency or major disaster exists that overwhelms state and local resources. Legislation before the 106th Congress (H.R. 707 and S. 1691) would, among other matters, amend the Act to: (1) fund hazard mitigation projects designed to reduce future disaster losses; (2) add conditions to assistance; and (3) consolidate provisions governing the distribution of aid to disaster victims. This report compares provisions of the two bills, and will be updated as legislative action occurs. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs957/
Terrorism: Section by Section Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1651/
Farm Disaster Assistance: USDA Programs and Recent Legislative Action
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs639/
Elementary and Secondary School Teachers: Action by the 106th Congress
The quality and quantity of public elementary and secondary school teachers are of increasing concern to the 106th Congress. Although states and localities are responsible for most aspects of teacher preparation, recruitment, and employment, the federal government supports a wide array of programs for teachers. Several of these programs are being considered for amendment and extension by the 106th Congress including the Eisenhower Professional Development program and the Class Size Reduction program. The 106th Congress has before it a wide array of legislative proposals to address teacher issues. Action has occurred on several proposals. This report tracks such action and will be updated as it occurs. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1163/
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants (Title II, Part A of the Higher Education Act): Overview and Reauthorization Issues
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4420/
Federal Tax Benefits for Families' K-12 Education Expenses in the Context of School Choice
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4419/
Federal Tax Benefits for Families' K-12 Education Expenses in the Context of School Choice
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4418/
Federal Tax Benefits for Families' K-12 Education Expenses in the Context of School Choice
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2615/
Foreign Students in the United States: Policies and Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4417/
Foreign Students in the United States: Policies and Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2614/
Foreign Students in the United States: Policies and Legislation
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2613/
K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and Legislative Action
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5863/
K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and Legislative Action
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4416/
K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and Legislative Action
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4415/
K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and Legislative Action
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2612/
K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and Legislative Action
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2611/
K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and Legislative Action
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2610/
Education Vouchers: Constitutional Issues and Cases
This report details the constitutional standards that currently apply to indirect school aid programs and summarizes all of the pertinent Supreme Court decisions, with particular attention to Zelman. It also summarizes the pending case of Davey v. Locke and other recent and ongoing state and lower federal court cases concerning vouchers. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4414/
Education Vouchers: Constitutional Issues and Cases
This report details the constitutional standards that currently apply to indirect aid programs and summarizes all of the pertinent state and federal court decisions, including the Ohio case that will be heard by the Supreme Court. On September 25, 2001, the Supreme Court agreed to review a case raising the controversial issue of the constitutionality of education vouchers. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris the Sixth Circuit held Ohio’s Pilot Scholarship Program, which provided up to $2500 to help low-income students in Cleveland’s public schools attend private schools in the city, to violate the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4413/