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), for the
Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the
Department of Energy (DOE), and several independent agencies.
FY2013 Energy and Water Development appropriations were considered in the
context of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25), which
established discretionary spending limits for FY2012-FY2021. On March 26,
2013, the President signed H.R. 933, the FY2013 Defense and Military
Construction/VA, Full Year Continuing Resolution (P.L. 113-6). The act
funds Energy and Water Development accounts at the FY2012 enacted level
for the rest of FY2013, with some exceptions. However, under BCA, an
automatic spending reduction process, consisting of a combination of
sequestration and lower discretionary spending caps, went into effect
March 1, 2013. The effect of these reductions on the budgetary resources
that will ultimately be available to an agency at the account level
remains unclear until further guidance is provided by the Office of Management
and Budget as to how these reductions should be applied.
President Obama’s FY2014 budget request for Energy and Water Development was
released in April 2013. The request totaled $34.4 billion. On June 26 the
House Appropriations Committee reported a bill, H.R. 2609, with a total of
$30.4 billion; the bill passed the House, with amendments, on July 10. The
Senate Appropriations Committee reported out a bill, S. 1245, on June 27,
with a total of $34.4 billion. On October 16, 2013, Congress passed the Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2014, H.R. 2775, P.L. 113-46, extending funding for all federal programs, including
Energy and Water Development, through January 15, 2014, at the FY2013 post sequestration
spending level.
For FY2014, as in previous years, the level of overall spending will be a major
issue. On March 21, 2013, the House passed H.Con.Res. 25, setting FY2014
spending at $2.77 trillion. On March 23, the Senate passed S.Con.Res. 8,
with a spending level for FY2014 of $2.96 trillion. On June 4 the House
Appropriations Committee issued budget allocations for the individual
subcommittees (H.Rept. 113-96). The suballocation for Energy and Water
Development programs was set at $30.4 billion. On June 20 the Senate
Appropriations Committee announced subcommittee allocations for FY2014;
the Energy and Water Development suballocation was $34.8 billion.
In addition to funding levels, issues specific to Energy and Water Development
programs include
• 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);
• proposed FY2014 spending levels for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE) programs (Title III) that are more than 50% higher in
the Administration’s request than the amount appropriated for FY2012;
and,
• funding for the nuclear weapons program and other defense activities,
which make up half of the total Department of Energy budget.
Date of Report: November 1, 2013
Number of Pages: 70
Order Number: R43121
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R43121 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, 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
Robert Pirog
Specialist in Energy Economics
The Obama Administration, in the FY2014 budget proposal, seeks to eliminate
a set of tax expenditures that benefit the oil and natural gas industries.
Supporters of these tax provisions see them as comparable to those affecting
other industries and supporting the production of domestic oil and natural
gas resources. Opponents of the provisions see these tax expenditures as
subsidies to a profitable industry the government can ill afford, and
impediments to the development of clean energy alternatives.
The FY2014 budget proposal outlines a set of proposals, framed as the
termination of tax preferences, that would potentially increase the taxes paid
by the oil and natural gas industries, especially those of the independent
producers. These proposals include repeal of the enhanced oil recovery and
marginal well tax credits, repeal of the current expensing of intangible
drilling costs provision, repeal of the deduction for tertiary injectants,
repeal of the passive loss exception for working interests in oil and
natural gas properties, elimination of the manufacturing tax deduction for
oil and natural gas companies, increasing the amortization period for certain
exploration expenses, and repeal of the percentage depletion allowance for
independent oil and natural gas producers. In addition, a variety of increased
inspection fees and other charges that would generate more revenue for the
Department of the Interior (DOI) are included in the budget proposal.
The Administration estimates that the tax changes outlined in the budget
proposal would provide $24.2 billion in additional revenues over the
period FY2014 through FY2018, and $40.7 billion from FY2014 to FY2023.
These changes, if enacted by Congress, would reduce the tax advantage of
independent oil and natural gas companies over the major oil companies. They
would also likely raise the cost of exploration and production, with the
possible result of higher consumer prices and more slowly increasing
domestic production; however, the measurement of these effects is beyond
the scope of this report.
Date of Report: October 30, 2013
Number of Pages: 13
Order Number: R42374
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R42374 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, 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
Anthony Andrews
Specialist in Energy Policy
Richard K. Lattanzio
Analyst in Environmental Policy
In early 2013, media outlets around Detroit, Michigan began publishing
stories about large piles of petroleum coke stored along the Detroit
Riverfront. Petroleum coke (petcoke) is a blackcolored solid composed
primarily of carbon, and may contain limited amounts of elemental forms of
sulfur, metals and non-volatile inorganic compounds. Petcoke is essentially
chemically inert. Petcoke exposure is considered to pose few human health
or environmental risks, but may present significant nuisance concerns. The
material in Detroit was the byproduct of the nearby Marathon Refinery’s
processing of heavy crude oils derived, in part, from Canadian oil sands
deposits. The situation gained national attention with the publication of
an article in the New York Times (“A Black Mound of Canadian Oil Waste
Is Rising over Detroit,” New York Times, May 17, 2013). The piles
of petcoke sparked local concerns over the potential impacts of the material on
human health and the environment, and whether these concerns were adequately
addressed by local, state, and federal regulations. As petroleum refining
is a nationwide commercial industry, these concerns may arise in other
regions.
Petcoke is a co-product of several distillation processes used in refining
heavy crude oil. Nearly half of U.S. petroleum refineries (56 or more) use
a coking process to convert heavy crude oils into refined petroleum
products, and more refineries may follow suit to take advantage of
the supply of heavy crude oils from Canada’s oil sands projects. Although
it is a refining co-product, petcoke has economic value as both a heating
fuel and raw material in manufacturing. In 2012, the U.S. Energy
Information Administration reported that U.S. refineries produced in excess of
56 million metric tons of petcoke, of which 80% was exported.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has surveyed the potential human
health and environmental impacts of petcoke through its High Production
Volume (HPV) Challenge Program and found the material to be highly stable
and non-reactive at ambient environmental conditions. Most toxicity
analyses of petcoke find it has a low potential to cause adverse effects on
aquatic or terrestrial environments as well as a low health hazard
potential in humans, with no observed carcinogenic, reproductive, or
developmental effects. Cases of repeated-dose and chronic inhalation of
fugitive dust (as generated during petcoke handling and storage) in animal
studies do appear associated with respiratory inflammation. Emissions from
the combustion of petcoke, however, can have impacts on human health and
the environment, including the release of common pollutants, hazardous
substances, and high levels of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.
While some federal statutes address certain environmental impacts of petcoke’s
life-cycle, most regulatory action and oversight has been undertaken at
the state and local levels, generally through facility-specific permitting
requirements. Federally, petcoke is exempted from classification as either
a solid or hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and is not considered a hazardous substance under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA). Petcoke facilities may be regulated under certain provisions of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, as
authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA), if it is determined that runoff
from sites where it is stored has the potential to transport the substance to
nearby surface waters. The handling of petcoke may also create instances
of reduced air quality due to releases of fugitive dust into the
atmosphere. Most of the impacts of fugitive dust are localized; and
thus, much of the regulatory oversight is implemented at the local and
state level. Whether such oversight is providing adequate protection is
among the issues that have been raised.
Date of Report: October 29, 2013
Number of Pages: 29
Order Number: R43263
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R43263 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, 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
Posts
