Congressional Research Service

North America is experiencing a boom in crude oil supply, primarily due to growing production in the Canadian oil sands and the recent expansion of shale oil production from the Bakken fields in North Dakota and Montana as well as the Eagle Ford and Permian Basins in Texas. Taken together, these new supplies are fundamentally changing the U. S. oil supply-demand balance. The United States now meets 66% of its crude oil demand from production in North America, displacing imports from overseas and positioning the United States to have excess oil and refined products supplies in some regions. The rapid expansion of North American oil production has led to significant challenges in transporting crudes efficiently and safely to domestic markets-principally refineries-using the nation's legacy pipeline infrastructure. In the face of continued uncertainty about the prospects for additional pipeline capacity, and as a quicker, more flexible alternative to new pipeline projects, North American crude oil producers are increasingly turning to rail as a means of transporting crude supplies to U. S. markets. Railroads are more willing to enter into shorter-term contracts with shippers than pipelines, offering more flexibility in a volatile oil market. According to rail industry officials, U. S. freight railroads delivered 435,560 carloads of crude oil in 2013 (roughly equivalent to 300 million barrels), compared to 9,500 carloads in 2008. In the first half of 2014, 258,541 carloads of crude oil were delivered. Crude imports by rail from Canada have increased more than 20-fold since 2011. The amount of oil transported by rail may also be influenced by a tight market for U. S.-built tankers. However, if recent oil price declines persist and the price falls below the level at which Bakken producers can cover their costs, some production could be shut in, potentially reducing the volume of oil carried by rail. While oil by rail has demonstrated benefits with respect to the efficient movement of oil from producing regions to market hubs, it has also raised significant concerns about transportation safety and potential impacts to the environment. The most recent data available indicate that railroads consistently spill less crude oil per ton-mile transported than other modes of land transportation. Nonetheless, safety and environmental concerns have been underscored by a series of major accidents across North America involving crude oil transportation by rail-including a catastrophic fire that caused numerous fatalities and destroyed much of Lac M gantic, Quebec, in 2013. Following that event, the U. S. Department of Transportation issued a safety alert warning that the type of crude oil being transported from the Bakken region may be more flammable than traditional heavy crude oil. Legislation introduced in Congress following the Lac M gantic disaster would require railroads to have at least two crew members aboard all trains. In addition, policy makers are proposing regulatory changes involving tank car design, prevention of derailments, and selection of preferred routes for transporting oil by rail. Congress may evaluate these changes in the reauthorization of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (P. L. 110-432).

Under federal law, local governments (usually counties) are compensated through various programs for reductions to their property tax bases due to the presence of most federally owned land. These lands cannot be taxed, but may create a demand for services such as fire protection, police cooperation, or longer roads to skirt the federal property. Some compensation programs are run by specific agencies and apply only to that agency's land. The most widely applicable program, administered by the Department of the Interior (DOI), is called "Payments in Lieu of Taxes" (PILT, 31 U. S. C. 6901-6907). Under the statute, eligible lands consist of those in the National Park System, National Forest System, or Bureau of Land Management; lands in the National Wildlife Refuge System if they are withdrawn from the public domain; lands dedicated to the use of federal water resources development projects; dredge disposal areas under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; lands located in the vicinity of Purgatory River Canyon and Pi on Canyon, Colorado, that were acquired after December 31, 1981, to expand the Fort Carson military reservation; lands on which are located semi-active or inactive Army installations used for mobilization and for reserve component training; and certain lands acquired by DOI or the Department of Agriculture under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (P. L. 105-263). This report addresses only the PILT program administered by DOI. The authorized level of PILT payments is calculated under a complex formula. No precise dollar figure can be given in advance for each year's PILT authorized level. Five factors affect the calculation of a payment to a given county: the number of acres eligible for PILT payments, the county's population, payments in prior years from other specified federal land payment programs, state laws directing payments to a particular government purpose, and the Consumer Price Index as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Before 2008, annual appropriations were necessary to fund PILT. However, beginning with the FY2008 payment and continuing through FY2012, a provision in P. L. 110-343 for mandatory spending ensured that all counties would receive 100% of the authorized payment. P. L. 112-141 extended mandatory spending to FY2013, though there was a later sequestration of 5.1% for that year. PILT's mandatory spending was renewed for another year in P. L. 113-79, resulting in an FY2014 payment of $436.9 million. As yet, Congress has not passed a measure for the FY2015 payment, normally expected to be dispersed in June 2015. However, the House amended H. R. 3979 to include the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment included a provision (Section 3096) for $70 million in mandatory spending for PILT. If enacted, this amount would provide roughly 16% of full funding, or perhaps less, depending on any increase in the formula-based authorized amount. Supporters of PILT are expected to seek other funding in addition to this amount. Over the next few years, the broader debate for Congress might then be summarized as three decisions: (1) whether to approve full funding of PILT through future extensions of mandatory spending (either temporary or permanent); (2) whether instead to reduce the payments, perhaps through the annual appropriations process or by changing the PILT formula; and (3) whether to add or subtract any lands to the list of those now eligible for PILT payments.