The 2014 Energy Balances publication presents energy data for over 200 countries and areas in a format which shows the overall picture of the yearly production, trade, transformation and consumption of energy products utilized in each country or area shown, for the years 2013 and 2014. Such a format, presented in a common energy unit, the Terajoule, is useful in assessing and analysing supply and consumption patterns across both products and countries in detail on an internationally comparable basis. It is the third issue of Energy Balances as a stand-alone publication, replacing the previous series of Energy Balances and Electricity Profiles. The standards brought about by the International Recommendations for Energy Statistics (IRES) have been incorporated.

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) and the Department of Energy (DOE), and for a number of independent agencies. President Obama's FY2013 budget request for Energy and Water Development was released in February 2012. For FY2013 the level of overall spending will be a major issue. The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25) contained an overall discretionary spending cap for FY2013 of $1.047 trillion. On March 29, 2012, the House passed a budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 112) that caps spending at a lower level, $1.028 trillion. The Senate has not passed a budget resolution, but on April 19 the Senate Appropriations Committee allotted subcommittee funding levels that totaled the $1.047 trillion cap in the BCA. The difference between overall spending caps is reflected in differences in spending proposals for Energy and Water Development programs. The Administration's request for FY2013 was $33.684 billion. On April 25, the House Appropriations Committee reported out H.R. 5325 (H.Rept. 112-462), with a total of $32.156 billion. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported out S. 2465 (S.Rept. 112-164) on April 26, funding Energy and Water Development programs at $33.432 billion. On June 6 the House passed H.R. 5325 by a vote of 255-165, with some amendments. On September 28, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (P.L. 112-175). The act continues appropriations until March 27, 2013, for Energy and Water Development programs at 0.612% above the FY2012-enacted levels, with two exceptions: DOE's Nuclear Weapons Activities program is funded at an annual rate of $7.577 billion, the amount requested for FY2013, instead of the FY2012 rate of $7.214 billion, and the Nuclear Nonproliferation program was increased by $100 million over the FY2012 level of $2.296 billion to fund domestic uranium enrichment R&D. In addition, issues specific to Energy and Water Development programs included: 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 proposed FY2013 spending levels for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs (Title III) that are 25% higher in the Administration's request than the amount appropriated for FY2012.

America's energy security paradigm has collapsed. For decades, politicians have been barking up the wrong tree when it comes to oil. Over the last seven years, domestic oil production has increased, vehicle fuel efficiency has increased, oil imports have decreased, and yet the amount Americans spend on oil imports - not just per barrel but in total - has skyrocketed. We drill more, we use less, and yet we spend more. In the wake of the Arab Spring, we can expect OPEC to keep turning the screws to drive prices higher. On the bright side, a revolution in extraction technologies has opened the door to unconventional natural gas. There's a light at the end of the tunnel, but only if we wake up, wise up, and send a message to Washington to shift gears from pork laden no-lobbyist-left-behind energy bills to Teddy Roosevelt style trust-busting. In a no-holds barred, fast paced, information packed sequel to Turning Oil into Salt, Gal Luft and Anne Korin spell out the pitfalls of an oil market dominated by a cartel and sketch a clear blueprint for getting America out from under its thumb.

Smart grids are for everyone but require the vision and investment plans for grid modernization. This document provides some practical elements on how to develop a smart grid vision and investment plan with a focus on the distribution side and also briefly discusses finance and regulatory issues.

#1 Calgary Herald Bestseller An investigation of the history and demise of the most controversial North American energy infrastructure project. In 2015, President Barack Obama denied approval for TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline, which would have carried crude oil from the Canadian oil sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast, providing great economic benefit to Canada. Over seven years of regulatory process, environmental activism, and media attention, the project had become infamous, a cause célèbre for North America’s ENGO movement and a test of Obama’s bona fides in the face of global climate change risk. As one of TransCanada’s senior executive group, Dennis McConaghy provides an insider’s perspective of Keystone XL’s history and demise. How did this routine infrastructure acquire iconic status? Why couldn’t government and industry find some accommodation to salvage the project? And most importantly, what must Canada learn from Keystone XL’s demise? Can the country find common ground between economic value and credible carbon policy?

Increasing U.S. energy supply diversity has been the goal of many Presidents and Congresses. This commitment has been prompted by concerns about national security, the environment, and the U.S. balance of payments. Investments in new energy sources also have been seen as a way to expand domestic manufacturing. For all of these reasons, the federal government has a variety of policies to promote wind power. Expanding the use of wind energy requires installation of wind turbines. These are complex machines composed of some 8,000 components, created from basic industrial materials such as steel, aluminum, concrete, and fiberglass. Major components in a wind turbine include the rotor blades, a nacelle and controls (the heart and brain of a wind turbine), a tower, and other parts such as large bearings, transformers, gearboxes, and generators. Turbine manufacturing involves an extensive supply chain. Until recently, Europe has been the hub for turbine production, supported by national renewable energy deployment policies in countries such as Denmark, Germany, and Spain. However, support for renewable energy including wind power has begun to wane across Europe as governments there reduce or remove some subsidies. Competitive wind turbine manufacturing sectors are also located in India and Japan and are emerging in China and South Korea. U.S. and foreign manufacturers have expanded their capacity in the United States to assemble and produce wind turbines and components. About 470 U.S. manufacturing facilities produced wind turbines and components in 2011, up from as few as 30 in 2004. An estimated 30,000 U.S. workers were employed in the manufacturing of wind turbines in 2011. Because turbine blades, towers, and certain other components are large and difficult to transport, manufacturing clusters have developed in certain states, notably Colorado, Iowa, and Texas, which offer proximity to the best locations for wind energy production. The U.S. wind turbine manufacturing industry also depends on imports, with the majority coming from European countries, where the technical ability to produce large wind turbines was developed. Although turbine manufacturers' supply chains are global, recent investments are estimated to have raised the share of parts manufactured in the United States to 67% in 2011, up from 35% in 2005-2006. The outlook for wind turbine manufacturing in the United States is more uncertain now than in recent years. For the past two decades, a variety of federal laws and state policies have encouraged both wind energy production and the use of U.S.-made equipment to generate that energy. One apparent challenge for the industry is the scheduled expiration at year-end 2012 of the production tax credit (PTC), which the industry claims could reduce domestic turbine sales to zero in 2013. In anticipation, at least a dozen wind turbine manufacturers announced layoffs or hiring freezes at their U.S. facilities in 2012, citing uncertainty around the renewal of the PTC as one reason. Other factors affecting the health of the U.S. wind industry are intense price competition from natural gas, an oversupply in wind turbines, and softening demand for renewable electricity.

DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of its Proposed Action to provide cost-shared funding to RTI International (RTI) for its proposed project to demonstrate the pre-commercial scale-up of RTI's high-temperature syngas cleanup and carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Approximately $168.8 million of DOE's total $171.8 million funding for the proposed project would be provided from funds authorized in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115). RTI's proposed project would advance the commercial deployment of cost-effective, environmentally sound technology options that reduce the constraints associated with using domestic coal energy resources and may ultimately assist in reducing greenhouse gas intensity. RTI's proposed project would be located at Tampa Electric Company's existing Polk Power Station in Polk County, Florida. The proposed project would treat a slipstream, equivalent to up to 66 megawatts of electricity generation, of coal-derived syngas from the existing Polk Unit 1 integrated gasification combined-cycle power plant to remove 99.9 percent of the sulfur, reduce trace contaminant (arsenic, selenium, and mercury) concentrations, and convert the removed sulfur compounds to commercial-grade elemental sulfur. Also, up to 300,000 tons per year, or 90 percent, of the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the cleaned syngas would be captured and sequestered in a deep geologic formation and not released to the atmosphere. This EA evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project in 13 environmental resource areas. Based on initial impact screening evaluations, DOE determined that no or negligible impacts would occur in six of these resource areas. Additional impact evaluations for air quality, geology and soils, water resources, socioeconomics, transportation, waste management, and human health and safety identify negligible or minimal impacts due to the proposed project's construction and operation. In this EA, potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project with other past, present, or future actions are also evaluated, and no adverse cumulative impacts are identified.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential impacts of providing financial assistance to Viresco Energy, LLC, (Viresco) for its construction and operation of a Coal and Biomass Fueled Pilot Plant, that would be located in Kanab, Utah. The plant would be located on land leased to Viresco by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration. The Pilot Plant would occupy approximately 1.5 acres of a 10-acre site located approximately 2.5 miles south of the downtown area of Kanab, Utah. The Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriations Act for Energy & Water Development and Related Agencies (Public Law 111-85) included a $2,500,000 earmark sponsored by then Senator Bennett of Utah for the "Utah Coal and Biomass Fueled Pilot Plant." In accordance with the earmark, DOE would provide financial assistance to Viresco to support its design, construction, and testing of a pilot-scale steam hydrogasification facility. Under a cost sharing agreement, DOE would provide $2,404,000 (approximately 80 percent of the total cost of the research and development project) and Viresco would contribute the remaining $601,000. The Pilot Plant would be constructed, owned, and operated by Viresco. Viresco is responsible for obtaining the permits and other authorizations needed for the project; DOE would have no regulatory authority over the project or its operation. Under the cooperative agreement, Viresco would operate the Pilot Plant and collect data for a series of test runs totaling 30 days of operation over a period of months; after DOE's financial assistance ends, Viresco plans to seek additional funding for continued operations. The objective of Viresco's proposed project is to conduct a pilot-scale evaluation of the Steam Hydrogasification Reaction (SHR) process. The Pilot Plant would be a small-scale facility designed to evaluate the technical feasibility of using steam hydrogasification to convert coal and biomass (such as agricultural or wood processing waste) into synthesis gas (syngas), and ultimately into clean fuels such as substitute natural gas, sulfur-free Fischer-Tropsch diesel, jet fuel, dimethyl ether, and methane. The successful operation of this SHR gasification technology at a pilot scale would provide engineering information needed to develop a commercialization pathway for this process. This project supports DOE's goal of developing and using domestic coal and renewable resources in an efficient and environmentally acceptable manner. This technology uses an advanced gasification process and produces clean fuels. The addition of biomass to the coal feedstock also reduces net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The EA found that the most notable potential changes from Viresco's proposed project would occur in the following areas: land use, aesthetics, air quality, solid and hazardous wastes, utilities, and socioeconomics. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing these potential changes.

DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing a financial assistance in a cooperative agreement with Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB). If SECARB received the funding, they would demonstrate the injection of 125,000 tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2) from a power plant into a deep saline aquifer for enhanced oil recovery and geologic sequestration. This funding would be used for drilling up to two injection wells, reconditioning of four existing wells for monitoring, and two new shallow water wells. Connected actions include the CO2 source at the CO2 capture unit at Plant Barry, the 12.3-mile long, 4.5-inch outside diameter pipeline to transport the CO2 to the oilfield, and the two electric service lines for a total of 3,275 feet. No connected actions are receiving federal money. DOE's proposed action would provide approximately $30.0 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement to SECARB. The cost of the proposed project would be approximately $39.3 million. This EA evaluates the environmental resource areas DOE commonly addresses in its EA's and identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project. The proposed project could result in beneficial impacts to the nation's energy efficiency and the local economy, and could contribute to a minor reduction of greenhouse gases.

DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing a financial assistance grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) (Recovery Act; Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115) to Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (Air Products). If Air Products received the funding, the company would demonstrate the capture of carbon dioxide (CO2) from steam methane reformers at Air Products facilities in Port Arthur, Texas; transporting the CO2 via pipeline; and conducting monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) related to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) at the West Hastings Field. The CO2 would be sequestered in the Frio formation as part of the EOR activities. Air Products would capture approximately one million short tons of CO2 per year using vacuum swing adsorption. The compressed CO2 would be piped approximately 12.8 miles to the existing Green Pipeline, which would in turn convey the CO2 to the West Hastings Field south of Houston, Texas. Denbury Onshore, LLC. is a subcontractor to Air Products for the use of the Green Pipeline and will share responsibility for conducting the MVA activities. DOE's proposed action would provide approximately $284 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement to Air Products. The cost of the proposed project would be approximately $431 million. This EA evaluates the environmental resource areas DOE commonly addresses in its EAs and identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project. The proposed project could result in beneficial impacts to the nation's energy efficiency, through capture of CO2 at existing Air Products facilities within the Valero Port Arthur Refinery, and to the local economy; increase domestic oil production; and could contribute to a minor reduction of greenhouse gases.

DOE prepared this Supplemental EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing financial assistance in a cooperative agreement with General Motors Limited Liability Company (LLC) (General Motors Company or GM). A supplement to the April 2010 EA was necessary due to the proposed building size increasing three fold as well as the addition of a parking lot and widening of a truck dock area. This building size increase is necessary to accommodate more manufacturing equipment and provide office space. If GM received the funding, they would construct a high-volume U.S. manufacturing facility to produce the first U.S.-manufactured electric motor components and assemble electric drive units for hybrid and electric vehicles. This funding would be used for constructing a building of approximately 104,000 square feet, paving an approximately 120,000 square foot parking lot, twenty-foot wide fire road representing approximately 8,000 square feet of pavement or gravel, and widening a truck dock as well as various other supporting infrastructure. DOE's proposed action would provide approximately $105 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement to GM. The cost of the proposed project would be approximately $283.9 million. This EA evaluates the environmental resource areas DOE commonly addresses in its EAs and identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project. The proposed project could result in beneficial impacts to the nation's fuel efficiency and the local economy.

DOE prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess the potential for impacts to the human and natural environment of its Proposed Action -- providing financial assistance to Phycal under a cooperative agreement. DOE's objective is to support the development of innovative concepts for beneficial CO2 use, which include, but are not limited to, CO2 mineralization to carbonates directly through conversion of CO2 in flue gas; use of CO2 from power plants or industrial applications to grow algae or biomass. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, DOE would provide approximately 80 percent of the funding for the development of a pilot algae farm and processing facility in Wahiawa and Kalaeloa, Hawaii, to demonstrate the beneficial use of CO2 for the growing of algae and production of algal oil (referred to as the proposed project within this EA). The proposed project would develop algae technology that demonstrates the future potential of algae oil for biofuels at a level that results in technical, economic, and environmental advantages. This advanced technology would not only help to enhance U.S. energy supplies through the responsible development of domestic renewable energy but would also help to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. The proposed project would include developing an algae farm and processing facility, which would include constructing shallow ponds, greenhouses, lab/offices, a process building, and an outdoor area with various processing equipment facilities. The proposed project would be split into two phases or Modules. Module 1 would provide a baseline assessment of core processes and initial optimization. Module 2 would include the scaling and integration of supporting processes. The overall objective of proposed project would be to confirm the process economics prior to commencing to a commercial scale, development of which is not funded under this award. The proposed project would create approximately 20 jobs in Module 1, and another 20 jobs in Module 2, for the total duration of the approximately three-year pilot. The environmental analysis identified that the most notable, although minor, changes to result from the proposed project would occur in the following areas: utilities and energy use, air quality and greenhouse gas, noise, geology and soils, vegetation and wildlife, solid and hazardous wastes, transportation and traffic, and human health and safety. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes.

Most Sub-Saharan African countries try to promote rural electrification through both centralized and decentralized approaches. This guide focuses on the decentralized approach, providing practical guidance on how small power producers and mini-grid operators can deliver both electrification and renewable energy in rural areas. It describes four basic types of on- and off-grid small power producers, as well as several hybrid combinations that are emerging in Africa and elsewhere. The guide highlights the ground-level regulatory and policy questions that must be answered by electricity regulators, rural energy agencies, and ministries to promote commercially sustainable investments by private operators and community organizations. Among the practical questions addressed is how to design and implement retail tariffs, quality of service standards, feed-in tariffs, and backup tariffs. The guide also analyzes the regulatory implementation issues triggered by donor grants and so-called top-up payments. It provides a primer for nonengineers on interconnection and operating standards for small power producers connected to main grids and isolated mini-grids. It analyzes whether the option of small power distributors, used widely in Asia, could be employed in Sub-Saharan Africa, and addresses two often ignored questions: what to do when the big grid connects to the little grid and how to practice light-handed regulation. Finally, the guide considers the threshold question of when to regulate and when to deregulate tariffs. All these implementation issues are presented with specific ground-level options and recommendations rather than just general pronouncements. In addition, to make the discussion more useful to practitioners, the guide provides numerous real-world examples of successful and unsuccessful regulatory and policy actions taken in Kenya, South Africa, and Tanzania, as well as Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. Many of the decisions are inherently controversial because they directly affect the economic interests of investors and consumers. The guide highlights rather than hides these real-world controversies by drawing upon candid comments of key stakeholders national utility managers, mini-grid operators, government officials, and and consumers."

The Department of Energy's (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) manages the research and development portfolio of the Vehicle Technologies (VT) Program for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). A key objective of the VT program is accelerating the development and production of electric drive vehicle systems in order to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum. Another of its goals is the development of production-ready batteries, power electronics, and electric machines that can be produced in volume economically so as to increase the use of electric drive vehicles (EDVs). Congress appropriated significant funding for the VT program in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5 (Recovery Act) in order to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment in addition to furthering the existing objectives of the VT program. DOE solicited applications for this funding by issuing a competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement (DE-FOA-0000026), Recovery Act - Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative, on March 19, 2009. This project, Next-Generation Lithium Ion (Li Ion) Battery Recycling Facility, was one of the 30 DOE selected for funding. DOE's Proposed Action is to provide $9,552,653.00 in financial assistance in a cost sharing arrangement with the project proponent, Toxco Incorporated (Toxco). The total cost of the project was estimated at $19,107,705.00. The overall purpose and need for DOE action pursuant to the VT program and the funding opportunity under the Recovery Act is to accelerate the development and production of various electric drive vehicle systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. DOE intends to further this purpose and satisfy this need by providing financial assistance under cost-sharing arrangements to this and the other 29 projects selected under this funding opportunity announcement. This and the other selected projects are needed to reduce the United States' petroleum consumption by investing in alternative vehicle technologies. Successful commercialization of EDVs would support DOE's Energy Strategic Goal of "protect ing] our national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy." This project will also meaningfully assist in the nation's economic recovery by creating manufacturing jobs in the United States in accordance with the objectives of the Recovery Act.