{
  "id": "RL31033",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL31033",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100455,
      "date": "2001-06-22",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:23:14.837941",
      "title": "Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fuel Equivalents to Potential Oil Production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)",
      "summary": "Congress is considering bills to allow oil development in ANWR, an area in northeastern Alaska\nwith a unique ecosystem rich in plant life and wildlife that is also one of the most prospective\nonshore areas in the United States for large oil discoveries. President Bush has proposed opening\nthe area to oil and natural gas development.\n  Among the numerous recommendations of the Administration report,  Reliable,\n Affordable, and\nEnvironmentally Sound Energy for America's Future  (May 2001), are proposals to open\nANWR,\nfoster energy efficiency and energy conservation, and review automobile fuel efficiency. Some\nobservers believe all of the Administration-recommended initiatives are necessary for meeting the\nnation's future energy needs. Others suggest that pursuing energy efficiency and conservation\ninitiatives can eliminate the need for undertaking certain production efforts that they see as posing\nrisks to the environment or other values. Specifically, many who oppose opening ANWR argue that\nthe oil saved from increased energy efficiency and conservation (through use of alternative fuels)\ncould do more to increase energy security and to reduce prices than exploiting any oil that might be\nfound in ANWR, while also avoiding the risk of damage to the environment and wildlife and the\nreduction of its wilderness character.\n  This report compares the range of estimates for potential oil production from ANWR with\npotential energy savings from increases in fuel economy and expanded use of ethanol. It thus\nprovides two of many possible answers to the question, \"Could energy efficiency and conservation\nsave as much oil as ANWR might supply? It does not address the larger question of whether that\ntradeoff makes sense in light of the total energy picture.\n  The Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that a technology-driven projection for cars\nand light trucks could increase fuel economy by 3.6 miles-per-gallon by 2020. The fuel economy\nimprovement through the first 20 years would generate average daily oil savings equivalent to four\ntimes the low case and three-fourths of the high case projected for ANWR oil production. Extended\nthrough 50 years, the fuel economy savings would range from 10 times the low case to more than\ndouble the high case for ANWR. Also, a Department of Energy (DOE) report projects that the\ndevelopment of cellulosic ethanol technology could more than double the growth in ethanol use by\n2020. By displacing gasoline, the increased ethanol use would, through the first 20 years, generate\naverage daily oil savings equivalent to one-fifth of the low case and 4% of the high case for ANWR. \nExtended through 50 years, the ethanol savings would range from three-fourths of the low case to\n16% of the high case for ANWR.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL31033",
          "sha1": "7bcdcf77b0c4b4850a671c8acab73f71545b7722",
          "filename": "files/20010622_RL31033_7bcdcf77b0c4b4850a671c8acab73f71545b7722.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20010622_RL31033_7bcdcf77b0c4b4850a671c8acab73f71545b7722.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Energy Policy"
  ]
}