Search

October 19, 2012 Summary After several decades of widespread stagnation, nuclear power has attracted renewed interest in recent years. New license applications for 30 reactors have been announced in the [...]

Contents Introduction Background--Creating the SPR International Energy Agency Obligation SPR Drawdown Authorities Severe Energy Supply Interruption Emergencies Severe Domestic Energy Supply Interruption Test Sale SPR Sites Bryan Mound Big Hill [...]

March 29, 2011 Currently, 104 commercial nuclear power plants operate on 64 sites in the 48 contiguous United States. (1) Sixty-nine of the 104 are pressurized water reactors (PWR) and [...]

Contents Introduction Establishment of the SPR SPR Drawdown Authorities Acquisition of Crude Oil for the SPR Royalty-in-Kind Acquisition Royalty-in-Kind Termination The Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve SPR Expansion Bayou Choctaw [...]

Contents Introduction Renewed Interest in Nuclear Power Expansion Worldwide Nuclear Power Status Nuclear Fuel Services Market Yellowcake Conversion Enrichment Fuel Fabrication Final Stages of the Fuel Cycle Waste Disposal and [...]

Contents Introduction Background--Refineries and Capacity Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts Refinery Closures Operable Refineries Refinery Capacity Distribution Changes in Crude Oil Supply and Demand Crude Oil Prices Demand Conditions Profitability [...]

Contents Background Unconventional Gas Shale Resources in the United States Barnett Shale Formation Natural Gas Resource Potential Southwest Regional Gas Supply and Demand Groundwater Resource Issues Marcellus Shale Formation Natural […]

July 1, 2009 Summary After several decades of widespread stagnation, nuclear power is attracting renewed interest. New license applications for 30 reactors have been announced in the United States, and […]

March 3, 2009 Summary The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) emphasizes jobs, economic recovery, and assistance to those most impacted by the recession. It also […]

Contents Introduction Renewed Interest in Nuclear Power Expansion Worldwide Nuclear Power Status Nuclear Fuel Services Market Yellowcake Conversion Enrichment Fuel Fabrication Final Stages of the Fuel Cycle Waste Disposal and […]

Background The Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), the primary agency responsible for procuring DOD's ground and air transportation fuels, buys bulk energy commodities and "resells" the fuel to various military […]

Summary After several decades of decline and disfavor, nuclear power is attracting renewed interest. New permit applications for 30 reactors have been filed in the United States, and another 150 […]

Summary Protection of nuclear power plants from land-based assaults, deliberate aircraft crashes, and other terrorist acts has been a heightened national priority since the attacks of September 11, 2001. The […]

Summary As part of the World War II effort to develop the atomic bomb, reprocessing technology was developed to chemically separate and recover fissionable plutonium from irradiated nuclear fuel. In […]

Summary Protection of nuclear power plants from land-based assaults, deliberate aircraft crashes, and other terrorist acts has been a heightened national priority since the attacks of September 11, 2001. The […]

April 13, 2006 Summary Oil shale is prevalent in the western states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The resource potential of these shales is estimated to be the equivalent of […]

The article discusses the role of the U.S. Congress in at least four areas of oversight related to nuclear fuel cycle proposals. It cites the provision of funding and oversight of U.S. domestic nuclear research and development programs related to expanding nuclear energy in the U.S. Another area is policy direction or funding for international measures to assure supply. It adds that policy issues may arise concerning the development of the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation.

The article discusses proposals addressing access to the nuclear fuel cycle outlined in three categories, those addressing the full fuel cycle, those addressing assurance of supply issues, and those focusing on waste disposal solutions. It details proposals from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2003 and 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush's 2004 proposal, and Russian President Vladimir Putin's 2006 proposal. Assurance of supply proposals include the Six Country Concept.

The article discusses factors driving renewed interest in nuclear power expansion. It recalls that high construction and operating costs, safety and nuclear waste disposal issues slowed the global industry's growth in the 1990s. While Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant accident prompted other countries to reverse their expansion plans, others like China have continued building new reactors. It cites factors like oil and gas price volatility, fossil fuel emissions and improved reactor performance.

The article focuses on the considerations for Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) oil releases and expansion. It suggests that in the absence of physical shortage, the oil industry's interest on SPR stocks is limited to spare refining capacity or building stocks. The 40 percent of U.S. refineries processing heavy crude oil is discussed in relation to SPR stocks which is mainly light crude. The effect of SPR releases on oil market speculations and the U.S. relying less on oil imports is explored.

The article focuses on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) oil releases. The sale of SPR oil by the U.S. Department of Energy is described wherein it is done through competitive bidding, with the oil entering the market in two weeks after the notice of sale. Occasions wherein SPR oil was released are discussed, over 160 million barrels for purposes such as severe and temporary supply interruptions, budget deficit reduction and financing the SPR program.

The article focuses on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) storage sites. Description of the sites are presented wherein they are located in naturally occurring underground salt domes and offers access to both marine terminals and pipeline systems. Storage capacity is discussed which amounts to 80 days of net petroleum imports. The SPR locations include Bryan Mound in Brazoria County, Texas, Big Hill in Jefferson County, Texas, and West Hackberry in Cameron Parish, Louisiana.

The article provides an overview of proposals which aim to control the full nuclear fuel cycle on an international scope as of March 2011. It states that of concern is the potential to use fuel cycle facilities to produce nuclear weapons. Proposals cited cover the full fuel cycle, whereby nations will be guaranteed fuel supplies to address their energy needs, and the back-end solution, where incentives are given for the responsible disposal of spent nuclear waste. A historical overview of various agreements regarding each proposal, is offered.

The article discusses the growth of nuclear power generation in the U.S. as of March 2011. It states that accidents, cheaper oil prices and high costs caused a decline of nuclear power facilities in the country. Due to rising oil prices, environmental pollution and improving technologies, however, the government has begun to offer incentives for the creation of more nuclear power plants. In the past five years alone, 30 new commercial reactors have been approved.

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. Key budgetary issues for FY2010 involving these programs may include: the distribution of Corps appropriations across the agency’s authorized planning, construction, and maintenance activities (Title I); support of major ecosystem restoration initiatives, such as Florida Everglades (Title I) and California “Bay-Delta” (CALFED) and San Joaquin River (Title II); funding for the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Title III: Nuclear Waste Disposal); several new initiatives proposed for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs (Title III); and funding decisions in DOE’s Office of Environmental Management. Energy and Water Development funding for FY2009 was included in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8). In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, the “Stimulus” Act, P.L. 111-5) included funding for numerous programs in the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of Energy, to be expended in FY2009 and FY2010. Funding for FY2010 Energy and Water Development programs is contained in H.R. 3183, which the House passed July 17, 2009. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 3183 July 29. The Conference Committee issued its report (H.Rept. 111-278) September 30, and the House passed the conference bill October 1, and the Senate October 15. The President signed the bill October 28 (P.L. 111-85). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past, the oil and gas industry considered gas locked in tight, impermeable shale uneconomical to produce. However, advances in directional well drilling and reservoir stimulation have dramatically increased gas production from unconventional shales. The United States Geological Survey estimates that 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas may be technically recoverable from these shales. Recent high natural gas prices have also stimulated interest in developing gas shales. Although natural gas prices fell dramatically in 2009, there is an expectation that the demand for natural gas will increase. Developing these shales comes with some controversy, though. The hydraulic fracturing treatments used to stimulate gas production from shale have stirred environmental concerns over excessive water consumption, drinking water well contamination, and surface water contamination from both drilling activities and fracturing fluid disposal. The saline “flowback” water pumped back to the surface after the fracturing process poses a significant environmental management challenge in the Marcellus region. The flowback’s high content of total dissolved solids (TDS) and other contaminants must be disposed of or adequately treated before discharged to surface waters. The federal Clean Water Act and state laws regulate the discharge of this flowback water and other drilling wastewater to surface waters, while the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulates deep well injection of such wastewater. Hydraulically fractured wells are also subject to various state regulations. Historically, the EPA has not regulated hydraulic fracturing, and the 2005 Energy Policy Act exempted hydraulic fracturing from SDWA regulation. Recently introduced bills would make hydraulic fracturing subject to regulation under SDWA, while another bill would affirm the current regulatory exemption. Gas shale development takes place on both private and state-owned lands. Royalty rates paid to state and private landowners for shale gas leases range from 12½% to 20%. The four states (New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia) discussed in this report have shown significant increases in the amounts paid as signing bonuses and increases in royalty rates. Although federal lands also overlie gas shale resources, the leasing restrictions and the low resource-potential may diminish development prospects on some federal lands. The practice of severing mineral rights from surface ownership is not unique to the gas shale development. Mineral owners retain the right to access surface property to develop their holdings. Some landowners, however, may not have realized the intrusion that could result from mineral development on their property. Although a gas-transmission pipeline-network is in place to supply the northeast United States, gas producers would need to construct an extensive network of gathering pipelines and supporting infrastructure to move the gas from the well fields to the transmission pipelines, as is the case for developing any new well field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Department of Defense (DOD) fuel consumption varies from year to year in response to changes in mission and the tempo of operations. DOD may consume upwards of 1% of the petroleum products refined in the United States annually. Petroleum products purchased and consumed overseas may double DOD’s consumption. The majority of DOD’s bulk fuel purchases are for jet fuel, which has ranged as high as 101 million barrels annually in the past decade. The U.S. refining industry has been supplying 50% of the jet fuel demand. DOD has consumed as much as 145 million barrels in overall petroleum products annually. In FY2000, fuel costs represented 1.2% of the total DOD spending, but by FY2008 fuel costs had risen to 3.0%. Over the same time, total defense spending had more than doubled, but fuel costs increased nearly 500%. Prices paid for military specification JP-8 and JP-5 jet fuel have exceeded the price of commercial equivalent fuel. In a recent move to contain fuel costs, DOD has begun substituting commercial grade jet fuel for some of its purchases, and upgraded the fuel to military-specification. Currently, 141 refineries operate in the United States. DOD’s top four fuel suppliers operate a combined 31 refineries in the United States, which represents nearly 6 million barrels per day of crude oil distillation capacity. A typical U.S. refinery yields a limited supply of jet and diesel fuel depending on the type of crude oil processed. Gulf Coast (Texas and Louisiana) refineries yield up to 8% jet fuel. Generally, refineries are set up to run specific grades of crude oil, for example light sweet crude or heavy sour crude. Light sweet crude is particularly desirable as a feedstock for gasoline refining because its lighter-weight hydrocarbons make it easier to refine. Heavier crude oils require more complex processing than light crudes, and sour crudes require desulfurization. Changing crude oil supplies have consequently forced refineries to upgrade their processes (thus increase refinery complexity) to handle heavier sour crude oils. At the same time, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken action to require lower sulfur content of diesel fuel, and has proposed a final rule that will require refineries to report their greenhouse gas emissions as a prelude to expected legislation that will limits emissions. The Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), which falls under the Defense Logistics Agency, has the mission of purchasing fuel for all of DOD’s services and agencies. In practice, DESC has typically awarded fuel contracts for lengths of one year, but there are other buying programs with longer contract periods. DESC uses fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustments. These adjustments provide for upward and downward revision of the stated contract price upon the occurrence of specified contingencies. DESC has determined that supplies and related services are eligible for the multi-year contracting provisions under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and has adopted contracting instructions for entering into multiyear contracts. Bulk petroleum contracts and direct delivery fuel contracts are likely to remain one-year contracts, however. DESC bases contract delivery price on the lowest cost to the government; however, the hidden logistical cost born by operational commands moving the fuel to their area of operations may not be fully accounted. The acquisition process for new military capabilities now requires that DOD account for fuel logistics when evaluating lifecycle costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) emphasizes jobs, economic recovery, and assistance to those most impacted by the recession. It also stresses investments in technology, transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure and proposes strategies to stabilize state and local government budgets. Energy provisions are a featured part of ARRA. More than $42 billion is provided in appropriations for energy programs, mainly for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Most funding must be obligated by the end of FY2010. ARRA also provides more than $21 billion in energy tax incentives, primarily for energy efficiency and renewable energy. More than $11 billion is provided in grants for state and local governments through three Department of Energy programs. They are the Weatherization Assistance Program, which provides energy efficiency services to low-income households; the State Energy Program, which provides states with discretionary funding that can be used for various energy efficiency and renewable energy purposes; and the new Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, which aims to help reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. The law conditions eligibility for most of the State Energy Program funding on enactment of new building codes and adoption of electric utility rate "decoupling" to encourage energy efficiency. For the Department of Education, about $8.8 billion is provided for "Other Government Services," which may include renovations of schools and college facilities that meet green building criteria. The Department of Housing and Urban Development ($2 billion),and the Environmental Protection Agency ($1 billion) receive multi-purpose funds that can be used for energy efficiency measures in public housing and state and tribal facilities. New transportation-related grant programs support state and local government and transit agency purchases of alternative fuel and advanced. . . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the early 1970s, Congress began mandating reductions in energy consumed by federal agencies; primarily by improving building efficiency, and reducing fossil fuel use. Early legislation mandated a 10% reduction in federal building energy and a recent Executive Order mandates a 30% further reduction by 2015. President-elect Obama has included the goal of improving public building energy efficiency in his administration's economic recovery plan. This report reviews energy conservation legislation and Executive Orders that apply to the Department of Defense, directives and instructions to the military departments and agencies on implementing the legislation and orders, Defense spending on facility energy over the last decade, annual Defense appropriations that fund energy-conservation improvements, and Defense energy conservation investments. In FY2007, Defense spending on energy to operate its facilities reached almost $3.5 billion. In the last decade, Congress has appropriated $443 million in Defense energy conservation projects, and the value of contracts to install energy savings improvements has exceeded $2.8 billion. While the Defense Department has reduced its energy consumption, its energy spending increased due to higher energy prices. Congress continues to look at furthering energy efficiency improvements in aging Defense facilities and buildings as a means to rein in energy consumption and spending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 (BOR), the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies. Key budgetary issues involving these programs include [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The physical security of nuclear power plants and their vulnerability to deliberate acts of terrorism was elevated to a national security concern following the events of September 11, 2001. Title VI of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 regarding nuclear security amended the Atomic Energy Act with the addition of new provisions for security evaluations and rulemaking to revise the "Design Basis Threat." The act included provisions for fingerprinting and criminal background checks of security personnel, their use of firearms, and the unauthorized introduction of dangerous weapons. The designation of facilities subject to enforcement of penalties for sabotage expanded to include treatment and disposal facilities. As part of security response evaluations, the act requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct "force-on-force" security exercises at nuclear power plants at least once every three years, and revise the "design-basis threat" to consider a wider variety of potential attacks. The NRC has strengthened its regulations on nuclear power plant security, but critics contend that implementation by the industry has been too slow and that further measures are needed. Vulnerability to a deliberate aircraft crash remains an outstanding issue, as the latest NRC rulemaking addresses only newly designed plants. Shortcomings in the performance of security contractors has drawn the attention of Congress. This report will be updated as events warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After several decades of decline and disfavor, nuclear power is attracting renewed interest. New permit applications for 30 reactors have been filed in the United States, and another 150 are planned or proposed globally, with about a dozen more already under construction. In the United States, interest appears driven, in part, by provisions in the 2005 Energy Policy Act authorizing streamlined licensing that combine construction and operating permits, and tax credits for production from advanced nuclear power facilities. Moreover, the U.S. Department of Energy proposes to spend billions of dollars to develop the next generation of nuclear power technology. Expanding global access to nuclear power, nevertheless, has the potential to lead to the spread of sensitive nuclear technology. Despite 30 years of effort to limit access to uranium enrichment, several undeterred states pursued clandestine nuclear programs; the A.Q. Khan black market network's sales to Iran and North Korea representing the most egregious examples. Concern over the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies, combined with a growing consensus that the world must seek alternatives to dwindling and polluting fossil fuels, may be giving way to optimism that advanced nuclear technologies may offer proliferation resistance. Proposals offering countries access to nuclear power and thus the fuel cycle have ranged from a formal commitment by these countries to forswear enrichment and reprocessing technology, to a de facto approach in which a state does not operate fuel cycle facilities but makes no explicit commitment, to no restrictions at all. The most recent proposal under the U.S. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) represents a shift in U.S. policy by not requiring participants to forgo domestic fuel cycle programs. Whether developing states will find existing proposals attractive enough to forgo what they see as their "inalienable" right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes remains to be seen. Congress will have a considerable role in at least four areas of oversight related to fuel cycle proposals. The first is providing funding and oversight of U.S. domestic programs related to expanding nuclear energy in the United States. The second area is policy direction and/or funding for international measures to assure supply. A third set of policy issues may arise in the context of implementing the international component of GNEP. A fourth area in which Congress plays a key role is in the approval of nuclear cooperation agreements. The 110th Congress has introduced several bills related to nuclear energy in the United States and fuel cycle assurances, including H.R. 885, S. 1977, S. 1700, S. 1138, S. 970, and S. 328 (Section 336). This report will be updated as events warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the price of gasoline approaches the 1981 record high (adjusted for inflation), liquid transportation fuels synthesized from coal, natural gas, and biomass are proposed as one solution to reducing dependency on imported petroleum and strained refinery capacity. The technology to do so developed from processes that directly and indirectly convert coal into liquid fuel. Congress now faces decisions on whether, and to what extent, it should support such a solution. Lacking domestic petroleum resources, but abundant in coal, Germany built synthetic fuel plants during World War II that employed the Bergius coal hydrogenation process (direct liquefaction), and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (indirect). The United States attempted to capitalize on the German experience after World War II. Despite considerable investment in synthetic fuel research and development, the United States cut support for commercialization when crude oil prices dropped and supplies stabilized in the mid-1980s. Since then, several synthetic fuels plants have been constructed around the world that convert coal, natural gas, or biomass to liquid fuels using the Fischer-Tropsch process. Several private ventures in the United States are now studying the feasibility of constructing Fischer-Tropsch synthetic fuel plants based on coal, natural gas, and biomass... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Protection of nuclear power plants from land-based assaults, deliberate aircraft crashes, and other terrorist acts has been a heightened national priority since the attacks of September 11, 2001. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has strengthened its regulations on nuclear reactor security, but critics contend that implementation by the industry has been too slow and that further measures are needed. Several provisions to increase nuclear reactor security were included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed August 8, 2005. The law requires NRC to conduct "force-on-force" security exercises at nuclear power plants at least once every three years and to revise the "design-basis threat" that nuclear plant security forces must be able to meet, among other measures. This report will be updated as events warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill includes funding for civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies. Key budgetary issues involving these programs include * the distribution of Army Corps of Engineers appropriations across the agency's authorized construction and maintenance activities (Title I); * support of major ecosystem restoration initiatives, such as Florida Everglades (Title I) and California "Bay-Delta" (CALFED) (Title II); * funding for the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and proposals to store nuclear spent fuel temporarily (Title III: Nuclear Waste Disposal); and * the Administration's proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to supply plutonium-based fuel to other nations (Title III: Nuclear Energy). The House Appropriations Committee reported out its FY2008 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, H.R. 2641 (H.Rept. 110-185), on June 6, 2007. The bill as reported did not contain indications of funding for specific projects. On June 20 the bill was debated on the House floor, but was not voted on pending submission by the Appropriations Committee of a supplement specifying funding for individual projects. That supplement was voted by the committee July 12, and the floor vote on the bill was expected the week of July 16. The Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Appropriations approved its version of the bill on June 26, and the full Senate Appropriations Committee approved it June 28 (S. 1751, S.Rept. 110-127). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How to safely dispose of wastes from producing nuclear weapons has been an ongoing issue. The most radioactive portion of these wastes is stored in underground tanks at Department of Energy (DOE) sites in Idaho, South Carolina, and Washington State. There have been concerns about soil and groundwater contamination from some of the tanks that have leaked. DOE proposed to remove the "pumpable" liquid waste, classify the sludge-like remainder as "waste incidental to reprocessing," and seal it in the tanks with a cement grout. DOE has argued that closing the tanks in this manner would be a cost-effective and timely way to address environmental risks. Questions were raised as to how much waste would be left in the tanks and whether the grout would contain the waste and prevent leaks. After considerable debate, the 108th Congress included provisions in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-375) authorizing DOE to grout some of the waste in the tanks in Idaho and South Carolina. Congress did not provide such authority in Washington State. This report provides background information on the disposal of radioactive tank waste, analyzes the waste disposal authority in P.L. 108-375, discusses the implementation of this authority, and examines relevant issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of the World War II effort to develop the atomic bomb, reprocessing technology was developed to chemically separate and recover fissionable plutonium from irradiated nuclear fuel. In the early stage of commercial nuclear power, reprocessing was thought essential to supplying nuclear fuel. Federally sponsored breeder reactor development included research into advanced reprocessing technology. Several commercial interests in reprocessing foundered due to economic, technical, and regulatory issues. President Carter terminated federal support for reprocessing in an attempt to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons material. Reprocessing for nuclear weapons production ceased shortly after the Cold War ended. The Department of Energy now proposes a new generation of "proliferation-resistant" reactor and reprocessing technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Protection of nuclear power plants from land-based assaults, deliberate aircraft crashes, and other terrorist acts has been a heightened national priority since the attacks of September 11, 2001. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has strengthened its regulations on nuclear reactor security, but critics contend that implementation by the industry has been too slow and that further measures are needed. Several provisions to increase nuclear reactor security are included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed August 8, 2005. The law requires NRC to conduct "force-on-force" security exercises at nuclear power plants at least once every three years and to revise the "design-basis threat" that nuclear plant security forces must be able to meet, among other measures. This report will be updated as events warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spent nuclear fuel is principally stored at 83 locations throughout the United States, including reactor storage pools, independent spent fuel storage installations, national laboratories, and defense weapons sites. Additional sites include university research and training reactors. The104 commercial nuclear generating units1 licensed to operate in 31 states discharge over 2,000 metric tons2 of spent fuel annually. The total inventory could approach 54,000 metric tons at the end of 2004. This report will be updated when new statistics become available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the 1970s, both the executive branch and Congress have promoted energy efficiency within federal agencies. When the federal government's energy-efficiency and conservation programs received severe budget cuts in the 1980's, Shared Energy Savings and later Energy Savings Performance Contracts were devised as part of the strategy to meet federal energy reduction goals. Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) offered federal agencies a novel means of making energy-efficiency improvements to aging buildings and facilities. In return for privately financing and installing energy conservation measures, a contractor received a specified share of any resulting energy cost savings. The contractor, referred to as an Energy Service Company (ESCO), guaranteed a fixed amount of energy and cost savings throughout the term of the contract, and bore the risk of the improvement's failure to produce a projected energy savings. The sum of the improvement's cost and its reduced level of energy cost could not exceed the pre-ESPC energy cost. The term "energy conservation measure" (ECM) was applied to energy-efficiency improvements such as energy- and water-saving equipment, and renewable energy systems such as solar energy panels. ESPCs were authorized in 1992 by amendments to the National Energy Conservation Policy Act. Federal agencies' authorization to enter into ESPCs expired October 1, 2003. Legislative attempts to reauthorize ESPCs in the 108th Congress stalled when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored ESPCs as mandatory spending that imposed a future financial obligation on the federal government. To date more than 340 ESPCs have been awarded with a total value of approximately $1.6 billion in private sector investments. None have failed to produce energy and cost savings. In comparison to ESPCs, $3.17 billion in appropriated funds was invested in energy-reducing capital improvements between FY1985 and FY2001, peaking at $288 million in FY1995 and declining to $131 million by FY2001. As appropriations-funded energy conservation projects have been declining since FY1995, federal managers have increasingly turned to ESPCs to fund energy conservation measures. Options for Congress include taking no further action on the sunset provision that ended agencies' authorization to enter into ESPCs, extending the sunset provision, or extending the ESPC authorization with amendments. Such amendments could include reducing the maximum contract length and expanding the contract scope to non-building applications. This report will be updated as the situation warrants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A comparative table is presented on major proposals on nuclear fuel services and supply assurances presented at the September 2006 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conference on nuclear fuel supply assurances including the IAEA/INFCIRC/640, the Putin Initiative and the Six Country Concept.

The article focuses on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) proposals in the 112th U.S. Congress. Bills introduced include proposals for SPR expansion to include refined petroleum product reserve, in which arguments for and against it are discussed. Summaries of the proposals are presented such as House Resolution (H.R.) 142, National Strategic Gasoline Reserve, H.R. 1914, Gas Price Stabilization Act of 2011, and H.R. 1748, Taxpayer and Gas Price Relief Act of 2011.

The article focuses on the U.S.'s obligation to the International Energy Agency (IEA). The policy of strategic stocks in IEA's International Energy Program (IEP) is discussed wherein the commitment of member countries to maintain oil inventories and participate in IEA coordinated responses to supply disruption are explained. The U.S. President's drawdown authority on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is presented, as well as the U.S. Secretary of Energy's test drawdown authority limit.

The article discusses the role of the U.S. Congress in implementing laws to govern the use of nuclear material both within the U.S. and internationally, as of March 2011. It states that Congress' role includes the development of an oversight of domestic programs for nuclear research and development, control of the same worldwide, ensuring a ban on fissile material for nuclear weapons, and providing funding to ensure all three.

A chart is presented on proposals to control nuclear fuel technology development on an international scale as of March 2011, which is based on a table presented by Chaim Braun at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conference in September 2006.

The article discusses factors that determine the success of international and institutional proposals on nuclear fuel assurance mechanisms. It notes the failed proposals in the 1970s-1980s like the regional nuclear fuel cycle centers focused on reprocessing technologies. It believes that success lies on whether nuclear energy is revived globally. The willingness of fuel recipient states to participate in international enrichment centers is seen to influence the success of the policy goal.

An introduction to the U.S. Congressional Research Service report "Managing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Policy Implications of Expanding Global Access to Nuclear Power" dated October 19, 2012 is presented. The report aims to provide U.S. Congress with information regarding proposed strategies to redesign the global nuclear fuel cycle. It looks at the motivation behind the renewed interest in the industry, the current state of affairs and the interdependence of the stages of the nuclear fuel cycle.

The article discusses the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) funding in the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2012 wherein 192.7 million U.S. dollars was provided, including a rescission of 500 million U.S. dollars from the 2011 sale receipts which avoided an additional sale of SPR oil in 2012.

The article focuses on the creation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the subsequent oil embargo on the U.S. by the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) is presented as spurring SPR's creation. SPR's capacity in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975 is discussed wherein its inventory should contain 90 days worth of net oil imports. SPR's role in preventing a reoccurrence of the 1973 economic disruption is explored.