As I noted earlier, Rep. Barton (R,TX) introduced HR 702,
a bill to adapt to changing crude oil market conditions (for some reason no
fancy name was included in the language of this bill). The bill would remove
restrictions on the export of coal, petroleum products, natural gas, or
petrochemical feedstocks.
Removing
Export Restrictions
The bill is very short with just four sections. The first
section outlines the ‘congressional findings’ that provide the reasons for the
actions outlined in the bill. Those findings relate to the changing
international oil market and the fact that the United States has drastically
increased its domestic production of crude oil.
The second section of the bill repeals 42
USC 6212. This was passed by Congress in 1979 during the ‘second oil crisis’
and authorized the President to draft regulations to control the exports of “coal,
petroleum products, natural gas, or petrochemical feedstocks” {42 USC 6212(a)(1)}
as well as the supplies, equipment and technology used to “maintain or further
exploration, production, refining, or transportation of energy supplies” {42
USC 6212(a)(2)}. Thus this bill would remove the authorization for any such
regulations. This repeal would potentially affect much more than the export of
just the crude oil mentioned in the congressional findings.
The third section of the bill would reinforce the repeal of §6212
by specifically prohibiting the action of any federal agency to “impose or
enforce any restriction [emphasis added] on the export of crude
oil”. This was done to insure that any export controls not based upon §6212
could not be used to control the export of crude oil.
Unintended
Consequences
This §3 language reflects a general mistrust for the current
administration (and perhaps government in general). Unfortunately the broad
language of this section (starting with the ‘Notwithstanding any other
provision of law’) could potentially be used to justify the avoidance of hazmat
shipping restrictions of crude oil at various stages of the crude oil export
supply chain. Given the problems seen with some of the rail the shipments of
Bakken crude oil, this was probably not the intent of Rep. Barton. But, wide
sweeping language frequently carries unintended consequences.
The
Inevitable Study
Section four of this bill would require the Secretary of
Energy to conduct a study and report to Congress on “on the appropriate size,
composition, and purpose of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve”. The report would
be due to Congress within 120 days of passage of the bill.
Moving
Forward
Given the current world price for oil it is unlikely that
there will be any urgent push for passing this bill. This bill would almost
certainly be able to pass in the House given the Republican majority. Whether
this bill could garner enough Democratic support to overcome a liberal filibuster
in the Senate is another question entirely. Modification of the language in
Section 3 might increase those chances.
NOTE: HR 666,
the earlier version of this bill that was essentially ignored by its author due
to the assigned bill number, has identical language. No one will touch that
bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment