Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations

Carl E. Behrens, Coordinator
Specialist in Energy Policy

The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies.

President Obama’s FY2012 budget request for Energy and Water Development was released in February 2011, but the Congress was concerned for the first months of the year with completing the appropriations cycle for FY2011. As with other funding bills, the FY2011 Energy and Water Development bill was not taken to the floor in either the House or the Senate in the 111th Congress. Funding for its programs was included in a series of continuing resolutions, and at the beginning of the 112th Congress was part of a major debate over overall spending levels. Energy and Water Development programs were included in the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-10) that became law April 15, 2011.

For FY2012 the level of overall spending was a major issue. In addition, issues specific to Energy and Water Development programs included:

•          the proposal to offset additional emergency supplemental funding for the Corps, for flood-related expenditures in the Midwest and elsewhere, with cuts in other programs; 

•          the distribution of appropriations for Corps (Title I) and Reclamation (Title II) projects that have historically received congressional appropriations above Administration requests; 

•          alternatives to the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, which the Administration has abandoned (Title III: Nuclear Waste Disposal); and 

•          large differences in funding proposals for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs (Title III).

On June 2, 2011, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development approved a FY2012 bill that would appropriate $30.6 billion for these programs, compared to the Administration’s request of $36.5 billion. The full Appropriations Committee voted out the bill (H.R. 2354) June 15. The bill passed the House July 15 by a vote of 219-196. On September 7 the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out its version of H.R. 2354 (S.Rept. 112-75).

On October 4 the House agreed to a Senate-passed version of H.R. 2608, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, funding government programs at the FY2011 level through November 18. The bill earlier had emergency funding for the Corps and for the Federal Energy Management Administration (FEMA), but that was deleted when agreement could not be reached over whether funding should be offset.

After several more short-term continuing resolutions, the House on December 16 and Senate on December 17 passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (H.R. 2055, P.L. 112-74), including Energy and Water Development Programs in Division B. Emergency funding for the Corps was included, without offsets, in a stand-alone bill (H.R. 3672, P.L. 112-77) that passed on the same days.


Date of Report: February 6, 2012
Number of Pages: 74
Order Number: R41908
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Closing Yucca Mountain: Litigation Associated with Attempts to Abandon the Planned Nuclear Waste Repository

Todd Garvey
Legislative Attorney

Passed in 1982, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) was an effort to establish an explicit statutory basis for the Department of Energy (DOE) to dispose of the nation’s most highly radioactive nuclear waste. The NWPA requires DOE to remove spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants, in exchange for a fee, and transport it to a permanent geologic repository or an interim storage facility before permanent disposal. Defense-related high-level waste is to go into the same repository. In order to achieve this goal, and in an effort to mitigate the political difficulties of imposing a federal nuclear waste facility on a single community, Congress attempted to establish an objective, scientifically based multi-stage statutory process for selecting the eventual site of the nation’s new permanent geologic repository. Congress amended the NWPA’s site selection process in 1987, however, and designated Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the sole candidate site for the repository by terminating site specific activities at all other candidate sites.

The Obama Administration, in conjunction with DOE, has taken three important steps directed toward terminating the Yucca Mountain project. First, the Administration’s FY2011and FY2012 budget proposals eliminated all funding for the Yucca Mountain project. Second, the President and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu established a Blue Ribbon Commission to consider alternative solutions to the nation’s nuclear waste challenge. Third, and most controversial, DOE has attempted to terminate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding by seeking to withdraw the license application for the Yucca Mountain facility.

DOE’s withdrawal motion triggered strong opposition from a number of concerned parties. The states of Washington and South Carolina—each awaiting cleanup and removal of defense-related nuclear waste at the Hanford and Savannah River Sites, respectively—have played significant roles in the legal challenge to the license withdrawal. Claims challenging the Secretary’s authority to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application were filed with both the NRC and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit).

Although DOE’s motion to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application was denied by the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the NRC has suspended the licensing proceeding due to budgetary limitations.

While the result of the ongoing dispute over the legality of the attempted termination of the Yucca Mountain program remains uncertain, congressional action could have a significant impact on the fate of the Yucca Mountain facility. A number of leading House Republicans have voiced strong opposition to shutting down the Yucca Mountain facility. Consequently, the Yucca Mountain dispute will not only be contested before the NRC and the D.C. Circuit, but also in Congress.


Date of Report: February 2, 2012
Number of Pages: 30
Order Number: R41675
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Keeping America’s Pipelines Safe and Secure: Key Issues for Congress

Paul W. Parfomak
Specialist in Energy and Infrastructure Policy

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. Recent pipeline accidents in Marshall, MI, San Bruno, CA, Allentown, PA, and Laurel, MT, have heightened congressional concern about pipeline risks and drawn criticism from the National Transportation Safety Board. Both government and industry have taken numerous steps to improve pipeline safety and security over the last 10 years. Nonetheless, while many stakeholders agree that federal pipeline safety programs have been on the right track, the spate of recent pipeline incidents suggest there continues to be significant room for improvement. Likewise, the threat of terrorist attack remains a concern.

The federal pipeline safety program is authorized through the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, under the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-90) which was signed by President Obama on January 3, 2012. The act contains a broad range of provisions addressing pipeline safety and security. Among the most significant are provisions that could increase the number of federal pipeline safety inspectors, require automatic shutoff valves for transmission pipelines, mandate verification of maximum allowable operating pressure for gas transmission pipelines, increase civil penalties for pipeline safety violations, and mandate reviews of diluted bitumen pipeline regulation. The Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act of 2011 (H.R. 3011) would mandate a study regarding the relative roles and responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation with respect to pipeline security.

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.


Date of Report: February 8, 2012
Number of Pages: 36
Order Number: R41536
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Lighting Industry Trends

Suzanne M. Kirchhoff
Analyst in Industrial Organization and Business

More than 4 billion incandescent light bulbs (sometimes referred to as “lamps”) are in use in the United States. The basic technology in these bulbs has not changed substantially in the past 125 years, despite the fact that they convert less than 10% of their energy input into light. Improving light bulb performance can reduce overall U.S. energy use. About 20% of electricity consumed in the United States is used for lighting homes, offices, stores, factories, and outdoor spaces. Lighting represents about 14% of residential electricity use.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007, P.L. 110-140), imposed higher efficiency standards for manufacturers and importers of general use, screw-base light bulbs commonly used in residential fixtures, that begin January 1, 2012. EISA 2007 did not ban incandescent light bulbs. Instead, the law mandated that bulbs manufactured or imported after phase-in dates specified in the bill meet higher efficiency standards—about 25%-30% more efficient on average. The law left it up to the industry to determine which products best meet those requirements. On December 23, 2011, President Barack H. Obama signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74). Title III of the law provided FY2012 appropriations for the Department of Energy (DOE), including language barring use of any DOE funds to enforce the lighting standards.

Lawmakers have cited several reasons for efforts to delay or repeal the law, including consumer concerns about lack of access to affordable incandescent light bulbs, and reports that companies have shut down incandescent bulb factories because they could not afford to retool to make more efficient products. While DOE predicts that energy-efficient alternatives such as compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) and light-emitting diodes (LEDs) will gain a larger U.S. market share after the Energy Independence Act is implemented, it also forecasts that incandescent bulbs will be widely available, and widely used, for years to come. U.S. and foreign manufacturers have developed higher-efficiency halogen incandescent bulbs, available at retailers, that meet the law’s minimum standards for 25%-30% electricity savings (compared to 75%-80% savings from CFLs and LEDs) and are competitive in price.

The Obama Administration and major lighting companies oppose efforts to repeal the 2007 law, noting that the industry has invested billions of dollars to prepare for the new standards and develop next-generation lighting. The new light bulb standards are taking effect at a time when the lighting industry, due to advances in LED products that often exceed EISA 2007 standards, is undergoing the most sweeping technological changes in decades. The LED industry is producing not just more efficient bulbs, but integrated fixtures that can be specially programmed to emit differing colors and types of light and have other potential applications.

DOE has been funding special research projects to bolster the LED industry, which is already the fastest-growing part of the global lighting market. Some analysts project that LEDs will make up at least half the global lighting market by 2020, driven by technical breakthroughs and enhanced demand from energy-efficiency laws in the United States and other nations. Some lighting executives argue that repealing EISA 2007 could undercut LED manufacturing efforts, where U.S. companies have a technological edge. The vast majority of the incandescent and CFL light bulbs Americans now use are imported from China and Mexico. China and other countries are investing heavily in LED production.


Date of Report: January 10, 2012
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R42028
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues

Paul W. Parfomak
Specialist in Energy and Infrastructure Policy

Neelesh Nerurkar
Specialist in Energy Policy

Linda Luther
Analyst in Environmental Policy

Adam Vann
Legislative Attorney

In 2008, Canadian pipeline company TransCanada filed an application with the U.S. Department of State to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport crude oil from the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Keystone XL would ultimately have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day, delivering crude oil to the market hub at Cushing, OK, and further to points in Texas. TransCanada plans to build a pipeline spur so that oil from the Bakken formation in Montana and North Dakota can also be carried on Keystone XL.

As a facility connecting the United States with a foreign country, the pipeline requires a Presidential Permit from the State Department. In evaluating such a permit application, after consultation with other relevant federal agencies and public input, the department must determine whether a proposal is in the “national interest.” This determination considers the project’s potential effects on the environment, economy, energy security, foreign policy, and other factors. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, the State Department considered potential environmental impacts of the proposed Keystone XL project in a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) issued on August 26, 2011. A wide range of public comments both for and against the pipeline were received during a subsequent 90-day review period. The State Department noted, in particular, concerns about the pipeline’s route through the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, an extensive sand dune formation with highly porous soil and shallow groundwater.

On November 10, 2011, in response to concerns regarding the pipeline route and related actions by the Nebraska legislature, the State Department announced a delay until 2013 of a national interest determination to gather additional information needed to assess a new pipeline route avoiding the Sand Hills. The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-78), enacted on December 23, 2011, included provisions requiring the Secretary of State to issue a permit for the project within 60 days, unless the President determined the project not to be in the national interest. The act allowed for future changes to the Nebraska route if approved by the governor of Nebraska. On January 18, 2012, the State Department, with the President’s consent, denied the Keystone XL permit, citing insufficient time under the 60-day deadline to obtain all the necessary information to assess the reconfigured project. TransCanada has stated that it will reapply for a Presidential Permit after a new proposed route through Nebraska is determined. In keeping with an agreement reached between TransCanada and Nebraska before the State Department’s announcement, the company expects to establish the new route by October 2012. If the permit application process starts anew, a new draft EIS potentially could build upon the August 2011 final EIS, incorporating necessary analysis associated with a new Nebraska route.

Several legislative proposals have sought to influence or alter the existing permit process for Keystone XL. Several bills, like P.L. 112-78, would have required the President to issue a final order granting or denying the Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline by a specific deadline (S. 1932, H.R. 3400, H.R. 3537, and H.R. 3630). These provisions have been mooted by the State Department’s denial of the permit. The North American Energy Access Act (H.R. 3548) would transfer permitting authority over the Keystone XL pipeline project from the State Department to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and would require the commission to issue a permit for the project within 30 days of enactment. The Keystone For a Secure Tomorrow Act (H.R. 3811) would immediately approve the initial permit application filed by TransCanada in 2008. Both bills include provisions allowing for later alteration of the pipeline route in Nebraska. Both bills may also raise questions about the President’s executive authority to issue cross-border permits.


Date of Report: January 26, 2012
Number of Pages: 29
Order Number: R41668
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.