HB 942 would amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to prohibit the export or sale of petroleum products drawn from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to certain foreign adversaries and their affiliates. It creates a new Section 164 that blocks SPR withdrawals to China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, and entities owned or controlled by those states or the Chinese Communist Party.
The bill also authorizes a national security waiver and requires a DOE rule to implement the ban within 60 days. Finally, it makes minor conforming amendments to maintain cross-reference consistency with related statutes.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes a new prohibition on SPR petroleum exports to specified foreign adversaries and their affiliates (including entities owned or controlled by those states or the CCP). A waiver is allowed if the Secretary determines national security interests justify an export.
Who It Affects
Primarily the Department of Energy’s SPR program and federal agencies implementing export controls; energy market participants that might rely on SPR for crisis response; and national security policymakers overseeing energy security policy.
Why It Matters
Clarifies the role of SPR in national security, ensuring the buffer cannot be used to support adversaries and signaling a tightened governance around SPR drawdowns and sales.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds a dedicated prohibition on drawing from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for export to certain foreign adversaries. It names four governments—China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran—plus any entity under their ownership or control, including those tied to the Chinese Communist Party.
In other words, SPR oil cannot be sold or exported to those actors or to entities linked to them. The act also provides a waiver authority, allowing the Secretary of Energy to permit a sale if doing so serves U.S. national security interests.
To ensure timely implementation, the bill requires the Secretary to issue an implementing rule within 60 days of enactment. Finally, the measure performs housekeeping by updating the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and related statutes to insert section 164 and reference it in the 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, ensuring legal coherence across the framework.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates new Section 164 prohibiting SPR exports to the PRC, DPRK, Russia, Iran, or entities owned or controlled by those states or the CCP.
A waiver can be granted if the Secretary certifies a national security interest justifies an export.
A rule implementing Section 164 must be issued within 60 days of enactment.
Section 161(a) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amended to insert reference to Section 164.
The 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act is amended to reference Section 164 of the EPCA in its national policy on oil export restrictions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This section designates the act as the Banning Strategic Petroleum Reserve Oil Exports to Foreign Adversaries Act. It provides the formal name by which the statute will be cited in policy discussions and enforcement actions.
Prohibition on certain exports
This core provision adds Section 164 to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, prohibiting the export or sale of petroleum products drawn from the SPR to (1) China, (2) North Korea, (3) Russia, (4) Iran, and (5) any entity owned or controlled by any of the listed countries or the Chinese Communist Party. The Secretary may waive the prohibition if a national security justification is certified. The section also requires the Secretary to issue a supporting rule within 60 days of enactment to carry out the prohibition.
Conforming amendments
This subsection makes three conforming changes: (1) it updates Section 161(a) to reference Section 164, (2) it amends the table of contents to insert “Sec. 164. Prohibition on certain exports,” after the existing entry for Section 163, and (3) it adds a cross-reference to Section 164 in the National Policy on Oil Export Restriction at 42 U.S.C. 6212a(b), ensuring coherence with the new prohibition.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- U.S. Department of Energy and the SPR program, which gains a clearer mandate and reduces exposure to adversarial use of SPR assets.
- National security policymakers and defense planners who rely on a robust energy security posture and reduced risk of SPR misuse by adversaries.
- U.S. energy market participants seeking policy clarity and stability in crisis-response planning, including refiners and marketers involved in SPR-related actions.
- Congress and oversight bodies that will have a clearer statutory framework to guide SPR policy and compliance.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal implementing agencies (DOE) incur costs to issue the required implementing rule within 60 days and to enforce the prohibition.
- Taxpayers bear potential opportunity costs from not monetizing SPR sales to foreign customers during crises or price spikes.
- Any costs associated with ensuring compliance for entities that could be affected by SPR drawdown restrictions and related reporting requirements.
- Administrative and regulatory costs borne by the federal government to maintain monitoring, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing a stringent prohibition on SPR exports to adversaries with the operational need for a flexible, timely response in national crises; the more expansive the prohibitions (including ownership and control language), the greater the risk of administrative ambiguity and unintended collateral effects on legitimate energy-market actions.
The central policy choice is whether to narrow SPR’s use in the international arena in order to prevent adversaries from accessing strategic energy assets, at the cost of reduced flexibility during emergencies or sanction regimes. While the waiver authority provides a mechanism to respond to evolving threats, the breadth of the ownership/control criterion could raise enforcement questions—particularly around complex corporate structures and mixed ownership in multinational energy firms.
The cross-references to other statutes improve legal coherence but may create unintended knitting points where future amendments must align with multiple programs and budgets. Overall, the bill strengthens export-controls around SPR, but implementation will hinge on how the 60-day rulemaking is executed and how the waiver is applied in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.