Regulatory: Considering energy regulations—Oil
3 aspects of federal oil regulation may change the shape of the countrys energy sector, and its economy, for decades to come
January 18, 2012 at 06:47 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Federal regulation of oil as an energy source currently has three principal aspects: regulation of drilling, especially off-shore drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS); review of a proposed pipeline to bring oil from Canadian tar sands to U.S. refineries; and regulation of consumption of motor vehicles to limit tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. The policies emerging from these stovepipes are only loosely coordinated. The outcomes depend upon the unique politics of each policy area, which factor in the public's strong aversion to high gasoline prices.
Offshore drilling. New technologies and techniques developed since the late 1990s have greatly increased the ability to recover oil from deep waters (greater than 600 feet). Today, 30 percent of domestic U.S. oil production occurs in the Gulf of Mexico, and off-shore drilling enjoys popular support in all Gulf states except Florida. However, 85 percent of the OCS (especially off the East Coast and California) is closed to drilling.
To lower pump prices and enhance national energy security, in March 2010, the Obama Administration proposed to permit drilling off Virginia and the eastern Gulf near Florida. Three weeks later, the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded. The administration publicly imposed a moratorium on further offshore drilling and withdrew its proposal.
Litigation losses ultimately forced the administration to withdraw the moratorium and replace it with regulations imposing greater health and safety requirements on individual wells, and requiring the drilling industry to deploy a response and remediation capacity commensurate with the scope of the risks. However, the administration has adopted a de facto “go slow” policy, and is granting just enough drilling permits to avoid further litigation. New production from the Gulf will be slow in coming.
Tar sands pipelines. Canada ranks second worldwide in proven oil reserves, thanks to its abundant oil sands. Advances in technology have made it possible to extract petroleum from these sands by burning natural gas to create steam that is pumped into underground formations.
The president is considering a petition to construct the Keystone pipeline to transport Canadian oil to U.S. refineries. The project would use well-understood technology to deliver oil that would enhance the diversity and security of the country's oil supply. The petition has engendered substantial opposition, however, because the carbon dioxide released through this production method is materially greater than emissions from normal extraction techniques.
The president faces a stark choice between new policies that focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the policy considerations (effects on prices, energy security, reducing country risk) that traditionally have dominated oil supply decisions.
Fuel economy standards. The greatest use of oil in the American economy is in vehicle fuels. While the U.S. has reduced tailpipe emissions of traditional pollutants by 99 percent since 1975, the transportation sector still emits large quantities of carbon dioxide. Rather than seek authority for a direct tax on fuels to encourage pollution reductions, the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency have issued regulations that require manufacturers to reduce tailpipe emissions of CO2, and double the average mileage of new cars. The rules will force automobile companies to develop new technologies to meet these requirements. Proponents hope that the rules will facilitate a transition to vehicles powered by alternative technologies other than oil.
This concerted effort to force a change in the fuels used to power the U.S. vehicle fleet is one of the greatest engineering and behavioral experiments ever required by a federal regulation. Its outcome will change the shape of the country's energy sector, and its economy, for decades to come.
Federal regulation of oil as an energy source currently has three principal aspects: regulation of drilling, especially off-shore drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS); review of a proposed pipeline to bring oil from Canadian tar sands to U.S. refineries; and regulation of consumption of motor vehicles to limit tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. The policies emerging from these stovepipes are only loosely coordinated. The outcomes depend upon the unique politics of each policy area, which factor in the public's strong aversion to high gasoline prices.
Offshore drilling. New technologies and techniques developed since the late 1990s have greatly increased the ability to recover oil from deep waters (greater than 600 feet). Today, 30 percent of domestic U.S. oil production occurs in the Gulf of Mexico, and off-shore drilling enjoys popular support in all Gulf states except Florida. However, 85 percent of the OCS (especially off the East Coast and California) is closed to drilling.
To lower pump prices and enhance national energy security, in March 2010, the Obama Administration proposed to permit drilling off
Litigation losses ultimately forced the administration to withdraw the moratorium and replace it with regulations imposing greater health and safety requirements on individual wells, and requiring the drilling industry to deploy a response and remediation capacity commensurate with the scope of the risks. However, the administration has adopted a de facto “go slow” policy, and is granting just enough drilling permits to avoid further litigation. New production from the Gulf will be slow in coming.
Tar sands pipelines. Canada ranks second worldwide in proven oil reserves, thanks to its abundant oil sands. Advances in technology have made it possible to extract petroleum from these sands by burning natural gas to create steam that is pumped into underground formations.
The president is considering a petition to construct the Keystone pipeline to transport Canadian oil to U.S. refineries. The project would use well-understood technology to deliver oil that would enhance the diversity and security of the country's oil supply. The petition has engendered substantial opposition, however, because the carbon dioxide released through this production method is materially greater than emissions from normal extraction techniques.
The president faces a stark choice between new policies that focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the policy considerations (effects on prices, energy security, reducing country risk) that traditionally have dominated oil supply decisions.
Fuel economy standards. The greatest use of oil in the American economy is in vehicle fuels. While the U.S. has reduced tailpipe emissions of traditional pollutants by 99 percent since 1975, the transportation sector still emits large quantities of carbon dioxide. Rather than seek authority for a direct tax on fuels to encourage pollution reductions, the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency have issued regulations that require manufacturers to reduce tailpipe emissions of CO2, and double the average mileage of new cars. The rules will force automobile companies to develop new technologies to meet these requirements. Proponents hope that the rules will facilitate a transition to vehicles powered by alternative technologies other than oil.
This concerted effort to force a change in the fuels used to power the U.S. vehicle fleet is one of the greatest engineering and behavioral experiments ever required by a federal regulation. Its outcome will change the shape of the country's energy sector, and its economy, for decades to come.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Groups Sue IRS Over Decentralized Finance Reporting Rule
SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Litigation Leaders: Jason Leckerman of Ballard Spahr on Growing the Department by a Third Via Merger with Lane Powell
- 2Arguing Class Actions: Manifestation Redux
- 3In Free Agent Lateral Era, Big Law Has 'Entire Teams Dedicated to Identifying' Top Talent
- 4Public Notices/Calendars
- 5Monday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250