Landsat and the Data Continuity Mission

Carl E. Behrens
Specialist in Energy Policy

The U.S. Landsat Mission has collected remotely sensed imagery of the Earth’s surface for more than 35 years. At present two satellites—Landsat 5, launched in 1984, and Landsat 7, launched in 1999—are in orbit and have continued to supply images and data for the many users of the information, but they are operating beyond their designed life and may fail at any time. In November 2011, imaging from Landsat 5 was suspended due to technical difficulties.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) jointly operate Landsat. The two agencies are developing a follow-on initiative known as the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM). The LDCM spacecraft (LDCM 1 or Landsat 8), with its instrument payload, was planned for launch in December 2012, but is now scheduled for January 15, 2013, at the earliest. NASA advanced the project to its final pre-launch development phase November 8, 2011, proceeding to final assembly and testing of the integrated satellite system and the launch of the satellite.

Landsat has been used in a wide variety of applications, including climate research, natural resources management, commercial and municipal land development, public safety, homeland security and natural disaster management. Despite its wide use, efforts in the past to commercialize Landsat operations have not been successful. Most of the users of the data are other government agencies. For that reason, funding a replacement for the failing Landsat orbiters has been a federal responsibility.

Of particular concern early in the mission was the possibility that the new satellite might not include the capability of receiving data in the thermal infrared spectrum, a capability that is now in Landsat 5 and 7 and which some users have found particularly useful. Funding for a Thermal Infrared Sensing Instrument (TIRS) was uncertain and progress on the instrument delayed. However, NASA’s FY2009 appropriation included $10 million specifically for TIRS. NASA announced in its FY2011 budget request that TIRS would be developed in time to meet the scheduled launch date.

With LDCM 1 proceeding to launch, interest is shifting to follow-up missions. For FY2012 the Administration proposed creating a new National Land Imaging program in USGS, with a contemplated launch of Landsat 9 in 2018. The Consolidated Appropriations Act 2012 (H.R. 2055) did not agree with the move, noting in the conference report that the move would “transfer budgetary authority for the launch of Landsat satellites 9 and 10 from” NASA to USGS. The conferees suggested that the coming year be used by “all interested parties to re-examine how to proceed with future Landsat missions.”


Date of Report: December 28, 2011
Number of Pages: 10
Order Number: R40594
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.

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding

Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP), established in 1981 as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 97-35), is a block grant program under which the federal government makes annual grants to states, tribes, and territories to operate home energy assistance programs for low-income households. The LIHEAP statute authorizes two types of funds: regular funds (sometimes referred to as formula or block grant funds), which are allocated to all states using a statutory formula, and emergency contingency funds, which are allocated to one or more states at the discretion of the Administration in cases of emergency as defined by the LIHEAP statute.

States may use LIHEAP funds to help households pay for heating and cooling costs, for crisis assistance, weatherization assistance, and services (such as counseling) to reduce the need for energy assistance. According to the most recent data available from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in FY2008, 53.3% of funds went to pay for heating assistance, 3.1% was used for cooling aid, 19.0% of funds went to crisis assistance, and 10.1% was used for weatherization. The LIHEAP statute establishes federal eligibility for households with incomes at or below 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income, whichever is higher, although states may set lower limits. In both the FY2009 and FY2010 appropriations acts, Congress gave states the authority to raise their LIHEAP eligibility standards to 75% of state median income. In FY2009, the most recent year for which HHS data are available, an estimated 35 million households were eligible for LIHEAP under the federal statutory guidelines (45 million were eligible based on the appropriations provision). According to HHS, 7.4 million households received heating or winter crisis assistance and approximately 900,000 households received cooling assistance that same year.

For FY2012, the House and Senate approved a bill (H.R. 2055) to provide $3.472 billion for LIHEAP formula grants; there is no appropriation for emergency contingency funds. (As of the date of this report, H.R. 2055was awaiting the President’s signature.) Funding for most federal programs, including LIHEAP, was included in the conference report for H.R. 2055 (H.Rept. 112- 331). The amount provided for formula grants in the conference report was $3.478 billion, but application of an across-the-board rescission of 0.189% for discretionary accounts resulted in the final appropriation of $3.472 billion. Funding for LIHEAP in FY2012 is about $1.2 billion less than was provided in FY2011, when Congress appropriated $4.5 billion for regular funds and $200 million for emergency contingency funds, but exceeds the President’s total request ($1.98 billion for regular funds and $590 million for emergency contingency funds) by about $900 million.

The amount included for LIHEAP in H.Rept. 112-331 resolved differences between proposals in the House (H.R. 3070) and Senate (S. 1599) that would have distributed funds to the states via different applications of the LIHEAP formula. Of the total appropriated as part of H.R. 2055, $497 million is to be distributed using the statutory, or “new,” LIHEAP formula, with the remainder, about $2.9 billion, distributed according to the proportions of the “old” LIHEAP formula.

This report describes LIHEAP funding, program rules, and eligibility.


Date of Report: December 22, 2011
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: RL31865
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.

Legal Issues Associated with the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline

Adam Vann
Legislative Attorney

Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney

Kenneth R. Thomas
Legislative Attorney

In 2008, TransCanada Corp. applied for a Presidential Permit from the State Department to construct and operate an oil pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border in a project known as Keystone XL. The Keystone XL pipeline would transport oil produced from oil sands in Alberta, Canada, to Gulf Coast refineries.

Environmental organizations and federal and state legislators are scrutinizing the State Department’s review of the Keystone XL project. Environmentalists question the adequacy of the review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the routing of the pipeline near key aquifers, and the emissions caused by the oil production. Additionally, as states have begun to contemplate taking action with respect to the pipeline siting, some have questioned whether state siting of a pipeline is preempted by federal law. Others argue that states dictating the route of the pipeline violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution prohibiting one state from acting to protect its own interests to the detriment of other states. This report reviews those legal issues, finding generally that state oversight of pipeline siting decisions does not appear to violate federal law or the Constitution. The report also finds that the State Department’s implementation of its authority to issue Presidential Permits appears to allow for judicial review of its NEPA determinations. A companion report from CRS focusing on policy issues associated with the proposal, CRS Report R41668, Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues, by Paul W. Parfomak et al., is also available.

A final NEPA document for the Keystone XL pipeline was issued in August 2011, but the next step in the permitting process, a national interest determination, has not been completed. This determination often considers the results of the NEPA process but is a distinct decision to be made by the State Department, and in this instance the State Department has not yet issued the permit. Some have claimed the delay is costing American jobs (for the construction of the pipeline and refinery operations), while others argue the delay allows a hard look at the pipeline’s potential impacts on the environment. Congress is considering legislation that would direct issuance of the pipeline permit, in some cases limiting further environmental review. S. 1932, H.R. 3537, and H.R. 3630 each would require the Secretary of State to issue a permit for the project within 60 days of enactment, unless the President determines the project to be not in the national interest. H.R. 3548 would transfer the permitting authority over the Keystone XL pipeline project to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and would require the commission to issue a permit within 30 days of enactment.


Date of Report: December 16, 2011
Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: R42124
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 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. The project is expected to cost more than $7.0 billion, of which at least $5.4 billion would be spent on the U.S. portion. TransCanada plans to build a short additional pipeline so that oil from the Bakken formation in Montana and North Dakota can also be carried on Keystone XL. Many Members of Congress have expressed support or opposition to the pipeline due to its potential environmental, energy security, and economic impacts.

As a facility connecting the United States with a foreign country, the pipeline requires a Presidential Permit from the State Department. In granting or denying a permit application, the State Department must determine whether a proposal is in the “national interest.” Such a determination must be arrived at in consultation with other relevant federal agencies and after public input. The determination includes an evaluation of factors including the proposed project’s potential to affect the environment, economy, energy security, or foreign policy.

Potential environmental impacts of the proposed Keystone XL project were identified and considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the State Department pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Publication of the final EIS on August 26, 2011, marked the beginning of a 90-day review period for the national interest determination. According to the State Department, a wide range of public comments both favoring and opposing the pipeline project were received during this period. In particular, the department cited concerns regarding 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 actions by the Nebraska legislature applicable to pipeline siting, the State Department announced a delay in its national interest determination to gather additional information necessary to assess a new pipeline route avoiding the Sand Hills. On November 14, 2011, TransCanada announced its decision to work with the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality to identify an acceptable pipeline route around the Sand Hills. The State Department estimates that the preparation of supplemental environmental analysis necessary for a new route alternative may be complete in early 2013.

International pipeline projects like Keystone XL are not subject to the direct authority of Congress. Nonetheless, several legislative proposals seek to impose deadlines on the permit process or require a permit to be issued. The Jobs Through Growth Act (H.R. 3400) would require the President to issue a final order granting or denying the Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline within 30 days of enactment. The North American Energy Security Act (S. 1932), the American Energy Security Act (H.R. 3537), and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011 (H.R. 3630) would require the Secretary of State to issue a permit for the project within 60 days of enactment, unless the President publicly determines the project to be not in the national interest. The North American Energy Access Act (H.R. 3548) would transfer the permitting authority over the Keystone XL pipeline project from the State Department to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and would require the commission to issue a permit for the project within 30 days of enactment.


Date of Report: December 12, 2011
Number of Pages: 27
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.

Nuclear Energy Policy

Mark Holt
Specialist in Energy Policy

Nuclear energy issues facing Congress include federal incentives for new commercial reactors, power plant safety and regulation, radioactive waste management policy, research and development priorities, nuclear weapons proliferation, and security against terrorist attacks.

Significant incentives for new commercial reactors were included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58). These include production tax credits, loan guarantees, insurance against regulatory delays, and extension of the Price-Anderson Act nuclear liability system. Together with volatile fossil fuel prices and the possibility of greenhouse gas controls, the federal incentives for nuclear power helped spur renewed interest by utilities and other potential reactor developers. Plans for as many as 31 reactor license applications have been announced, although only a handful of those projects currently appear to be moving toward construction.

The earthquake and resulting tsunami that severely damaged Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on March 11, 2011, raised questions in Congress about the accident’s possible implications for nuclear safety regulation, U.S. nuclear energy expansion, and radioactive waste policy. The tsunami blacked out all electric power at the six-reactor plant, resulting in the overheating of several reactor cores and spent fuel storage pools, major hydrogen explosions, and releases of radioactive material to the environment. Several House and Senate hearings have been held on the accident, and several bills on nuclear safety have been introduced.

In his January 2011 State of the Union Address, President Obama called for nuclear power to be included in a national goal of generating 80% of U.S. electricity “from clean energy sources” by 2035. Financing for new reactors is widely considered to depend on the loan guarantees authorized by EPACT05 Title XVII, administered by the Department of Energy (DOE). The total amount of loan guarantees to be provided to nuclear power projects has been a continuing congressional issue. Nuclear power plants are currently allocated $18.5 billion in loan guarantees, enough for three or four reactors. President Obama’s FY2012 budget request would nearly triple the loan guarantee ceiling for nuclear power plants, to $54.5 billion. However, opponents of nuclear power contend that the Administration’s proposed increases in nuclear loan guarantees would provide an unjustifiable subsidy to a mature industry and shift investment away from renewable energy and efficiency technologies.

DOE’s nuclear energy research and development program includes advanced reactors, fuel cycle technology and facilities, and infrastructure support. The Obama Administration requested $824.1 million in FY2011 and received $732.1 million. The Administration requested $754 million for FY2012. Congress has not yet taken final action on the FY2012 nuclear energy budget.

Disposal of highly radioactive waste has been one of the most controversial aspects of nuclear power. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-425), as amended in 1987, required DOE to conduct a detailed physical characterization of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a permanent underground repository for high-level waste. The Obama Administration decided to “terminate the Yucca Mountain program while developing nuclear waste disposal alternatives,” according to the DOE FY2010 budget justification. Alternatives to Yucca Mountain are being evaluated by a “blue ribbon” panel of experts convened by the Administration. No funding was provided for the Yucca Mountain project in FY2011, and DOE filed a motion with NRC to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application on March 3, 2010. However, the motion to withdraw has prompted substantial opposition, including lawsuits in federal court.


Date of Report: November 25, 2011
Number of Pages: 42
Order Number: RL33558
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.