In 2008, Canadian pipeline company TransCanada filed an application with the U.S. Department of State to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport crude oil from the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Keystone XL would ultimately have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day, delivering crude oil to the market hub at Cushing, OK, and further to points in Texas. TransCanada plans to build a pipeline spur so that oil from the Bakken formation in Montana and North Dakota can also be carried on Keystone XL. As a facility connecting the United States with a foreign country, the pipeline requires a Presidential Permit from the State Department. In evaluating such a permit application, after consultation with other relevant federal agencies and public input, the department must determine whether a proposal is in the "national interest." This determination considers the project's potential effects on the environment, economy, energy security, foreign policy, and other factors. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, the State Department considered potential environmental impacts of the proposed Keystone XL project in a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) issued on August 26, 2011. A wide range of public ...

Nearly half a million miles of oil and gas transmission pipeline crisscross the United States. The nation's pipeline industry has made substantial investments to protect these systems and respond to the possibility of terror attacks. However, U.S. pipelines are inherently vulnerable because of their number and dispersion. Due to the essential role pipelines play in our economy, Congress is examining the adequacy of federal pipeline security efforts.

Congress is examining potential approaches to reducing manmade contributions to global warming from U.S. sources. One approach is carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) - capturing CO2 at its source (e.g., a power plant) and storing it indefinitely (e.g., underground) to avoid its release to the atmosphere. A common requirement among the various techniques for CCS is a dedicated pipeline network for transporting CO2 from capture sites to storage sites.

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a hazardous fuel shipped in large tankers to U.S. ports from overseas. While LNG has historically made up a small part of U.S. natural gas supplies, rising price volatility, and the possibility of domestic shortages have significantly increased LNG demand. To meet this demand, energy companies have proposed new LNG import terminals throughout the coastal United States. Many of these terminals would be built onshore near populated areas.

In 2008, Canadian pipeline company TransCanada filed an application with the U.S. Department of State to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport crude oil from the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Keystone XL would ultimately have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day, delivering crude oil to the market hub at Cushing, OK, and further to points in Texas. TransCanada plans to build a pipeline spur so that oil from the Bakken formation in Montana and North Dakota can also be carried on Keystone XL. As a facility connecting the United States with a foreign country, the pipeline requires a Presidential Permit from the State Department. In evaluating such a permit application, the department must determine whether it is in the "national interest," considering the project's potential effects on the environment, economy, energy security, foreign policy, and other factors. Environmental impacts are considered pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, and documented by the State Department in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The final EIS was released for the Keystone XL pipeline permit application in August 2011, after which a 90- day public review period began to make the national interest determination. During that time the State Department determined that more information was needed to consider an alternative pipeline route avoiding the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska, an extensive sand dune formation with highly porous soil and a shallow depth to groundwater recharging the Ogallala aquifer.

As estimates for the amount of U.S. natural gas resources have grown, so have the prospects of rising U.S. natural gas exports. The United States is expected to go from a net importer of natural gas to a net exporter by 2020. Projects to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) by tanker ship have been proposed-cumulatively accounting for about 12.5% of current U.S. natural gas production-and are at varying stages of regulatory approval. Projects require federal approval under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b), with the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission being the lead authorizing agencies. Pipeline exports, which accounted for 94% of all exports of U.S. produced natural gas in 2010, are also likely to rise. What effect exporting natural gas will have on U.S. prices is the central question in the debate over whether to export. A significant rise in U.S. natural gas exports would likely put upwards pressure on domestic prices, but the magnitude of any rise is currently unclear. There are numerous factors that will affect prices: export volumes, economic growth, differences in local markets, and government regulations, among others. With today's natural gas prices relatively low compared to global prices and historically low for the United States, producers are looking for new markets for their natural gas. Producers contend that increased exports will not raise prices significantly as there is ample supply to meet domestic demand, and there will be the added benefits of increased revenues, trade, and jobs, and less flaring. Consumers of natural gas, who are being helped by the low prices, fear prices will rise if natural gas is exported. Electric power generation represents potentially the greatest increase in natural gas consumption in the U.S. economy, primarily for environmental reasons. Natural gas emits much less carbon dioxide and other pollutants than coal when combusted. Other types of consumption are not likely to increase natural gas demand domestically for a long time. Use in the transportation sector to displace oil is likely to be small because expensive new infrastructure and technologies would be required. There is discussion of a possible revival of the U.S. petrochemicals sector, but the potential extent of a change is unclear. Getting natural gas to markets where it can be consumed, whether domestically or internationally, may be the industry's biggest challenge. Infrastructure constraints, environmental regulations, and other factors will influence how the market adjusts to balance supply and demand. Environmental groups are split regarding natural gas use, with some favoring increased use to curb emissions of certain pollutants, while others oppose expanded use of natural gas because it is not as clean as renewable forms of energy, such as wind or solar. The use of hydraulic fracturing to produce shale gas has also raised concerns among environmental groups particularly concerned with its possible impacts on water quality. The possibility of a significant increase in U.S. natural gas exports will factor into ongoing debates on the economy, energy independence, climate change, and energy security. As the proposed projects continue to develop, policymakers are likely to receive more inquiries about these projects. Proposals to expedite and expand LNG exports have already been raised in the 113th Congress, including in S. 192 and H.R. 580. Two other bills, H.R. 1189 and H.R. 1191, would reform the DOE's process for determining the public interest regarding LNG exports and prohibit exports of natural gas produced on federal lands.

Energy storage technology has great potential to improve electric power grids, to enable growth in renewable electricity generation, and to provide alternatives to oil-derived fuels in the nation's transportation sector. In the electric power system, the promise of this technology lies in its potential to increase grid efficiency and reliability-optimizing power flows and supporting variable power supplies from wind and solar generation. In transportation, vehicles powered by batteries or other electric technologies have the potential to displace vehicles burning gasoline and diesel fuel, reducing associated emissions and demand for oil. Federal policy makers have become increasingly interested in promoting energy storage technology as a key enabler of broad electric power and transportation sector objectives. The Storage Technology for Renewable and Green Energy Act of 2011 (S. 1845), introduced on November 10, 2011, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Order 755, Frequency Regulation Compensation in the Organized Wholesale Power Markets, are just two recent initiatives intended to promote energy storage deployment in the United States. Numerous private companies and national laboratories, many with federal support, are engaged in storage research and development efforts across a very wide range of technologies and applications. This report attempts to summarize the current state of knowledge regarding energy storage technologies for both electric power grid and electric vehicle applications. It is intended to serve as a reference for policymakers interested in understanding the range of technologies and applications associated with energy storage, comparing them, when possible, in a structured way to highlight key characteristics relevant to widespread use. While the emphasis is on technology (including key performance metrics such as cost and efficiency), this report also addresses the significant policy, market, and other non-technical factors that may impede storage adoption. It considers eight major categories of storage technology: pumped hydro, compressed air, batteries, capacitors, superconducting magnetic energy storage, flywheels, thermal storage, and hydrogen. Energy storage technologies for electric applications have achieved various levels of technical and economic maturity in the marketplace. For grid storage, challenges include roundtrip efficiencies that range from under 30% to over 90%. Efficiency losses represent a tradeoff between the increased cost of electricity cycled through storage, and the increased value of greater dispatchability and other services to the grid. The capital cost of many grid storage technologies is also very high relative to conventional alternatives, such as gas-fired power plants, which can be constructed quickly and are perceived as a low risk investment by both regulated utilities and independent power producers. The existing market structures in the electric sector also may undervalue the many services that electricity storage can provide. For transportation storage, the current primary challenges are the limited availability and high costs of both battery-electric and hydrogen-fueled vehicles. Additional challenges are new infrastructure requirements, particularly for hydrogen, which requires new distribution and fueling infrastructure, while battery electric vehicles are limited by range and charging times, especially when compared to conventional gasoline vehicles. Substantial research and development activities are underway in the United States and elsewhere to improve the economic and technical performance of electricity storage options. Changes to market structures and policies may also be critical components of achieving competitiveness for electricity storage devices. Removing non-technical barriers may be as important as technology improvements in increasing adoption of energy storage to improve grid and vehicle performance.

Critical infrastructure consists of systems and assets so vital to the United States that their incapacity would harm the nation's physical security, economic security, or public health. Critical infrastructure is often geographically concentrated, so it may be distinctly vulnerable to events like natural disasters, epidemics, and certain kinds of terrorist attacks. Disruption of concentrated infrastructure could have greatly disproportionate effects, with costs potentially running into billions of dollars and spreading far beyond the immediate area of disturbance. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita demonstrated this kind of geographic vulnerability by disrupting a substantial part of the U.S. energy and chemical sectors in 2005. Congress has been examining federal policies related to the geographic concentration and vulnerability of critical infrastructure. In the 109th Congress, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) facilitated the construction of new liquefied natural gas import terminals in diverse ports. Provisions in the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-468) require studies to identify geographic areas in the United States where unplanned loss of oil pipeline facilities may cause oil shortages or price disruptions. The 110th Congress is overseeing implementation of these measures and considering additional policies to address concerns about infrastructure concentration. Geographic concentrations of U.S. critical infrastructure typically have developed through some combination of market influences including resource location, agglomeration economies, scale economies, community preferences, and capital efficiency. Congress and federal agencies also have adopted policies affecting the capacity and location of critical infrastructure, including prescriptive siting, economic incentives, environmental regulation, and economic regulation.

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports to the United States are increasing to supplement domestic gas production. Recent actions by Congress and federal agencies have promoted greater LNG supplies by changing regulations, clarifying siting authorities, and streamlining the approval process for LNG import terminals. Were these policies to continue and gas demand to grow, LNG might account for as much as 21% of U.S. gas supply by 2025, up from 3% in 2005. Congress is examining the infrastructure and market implications of greater U.S. LNG demand.

If constructed, the Keystone XL pipeline would transport crude oil (e.g., synthetic crude oil or diluted bitumen) derived from oil sands in Alberta, Canada to destinations in the United States. Because the pipeline crosses an international border, it requires a Presidential Permit that is issued by the Department of State (DOS). The permit decision rests on a "national interest" determination, a term not defined in the authorizing Executive Orders. DOS states that it has "significant discretion" in the factors it examines in this determination. Key events related to the Presidential Permit include: September 19, 2008: TransCanada submitted an application for a Presidential Permit for its Keystone XL pipeline. November 10, 2011: DOS announced it needed additional information concerning alternative pipeline routes through the Nebraska Sandhills. January 18, 2012: In response to a legislative mandate in P.L. 112-78, DOS, with the President's consent, announced its denial of the Keystone XL permit. May 4, 2012: TransCanada submitted a revised permit application to DOS. Although some groups have opposed previous oil pipeline permits, opposition to the Keystone XL proposal has generated substantially more interest among environmental stakeholders. Pipeline opponents are not a monolithic group: some raise concerns about potential local impacts, such as oil spills or extraction impacts in Canada; some argue the pipeline would have national energy and climate change policy implications. A number of key studies indicate that oil sands crude has a higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity than many other forms of crude oil. The primary reason for the higher intensity: oil sands are heavy oils with a high viscosity, requiring more energy- and resource intensive activities to extract. However, analytical results vary due to different modeling assumptions. Moreover, industry stakeholders point out that many analyses indicate that GHG emissions from oil sands crude oil are comparable to other heavy crudes, some of which are produced and/or consumed in the United States. Because of oil sands' increased emissions intensity, further oil sands development runs counter to some stakeholders' energy and climate change policy objectives. These objectives may vary based on differing views concerning the severity of climate change risk and/or the need for significant mitigation efforts. Opponents worry that oil sands crude oil will account for a greater percentage of U.S. oil consumption over time, making GHG emissions reduction more difficult. On the other hand, neither issuance of a Presidential Permit nor increased oil sands development would preclude the implementation of energy/climate policies that would support less carbon intensive fuels or energy efficiency improvements. A primary local/regional environmental concern of any oil pipeline is the risk of a spill. Environmental groups have argued that both the pipeline's operating parameters and the material being transported imposes an increased risk of spill. Industry stakeholders have been critical of these assertions. To examine the concerns, Congress included provisions in P.L. 112-90 requiring a review of current oil pipeline regulations and a risk analysis of oil sands crude. Opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline and oil sands development often highlight the environmental impacts that pertain to the region in which the oil sands resources are extracted. Potential impacts include, among others, land disturbance and water resource issues. In general, these local/regional impacts from Canadian oil sands development may not directly affect public health or the environment in the United States. Within the context of a Presidential Permit, the mechanism to consider local Canadian impacts is unclear.