U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 98— OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

42 U.S.C. § 9001

Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Congress finds that—(1) the supply of nonrenewable fuels in the United States is slowly being depleted;(2) alternative sources of energy must be developed;(3) ocean thermal energy is a renewable energy resource that can make a significant contribution to the energy needs of the United States;(4) the technology base for ocean thermal energy conversion has improved over the past two years, and has consequently lowered the technical risk involved in constructing moderate-sized pilot plants with an electrical generating capacity of about ten to forty megawatts;(5) while the Federal ocean thermal energy conversion program has grown in size and scope over the past several years, it is in the national interest to accelerate efforts to commercialize ocean thermal energy conversion by building pilot and demonstration facilities and to begin planning for the commercial demonstration of ocean thermal energy conversion technology;(6) a strong and innovative domestic industry committed to the commercialization of ocean thermal energy conversion must be established, and many competent domestic industrial groups are already involved in ocean thermal energy conversion research and development activity; and(7) consistent with the findings of the Domestic Policy Review on Solar Energy, ocean thermal energy conversion energy can potentially contribute at least one-tenth of quad of energy per year by the year 2000.(b) Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to accelerate ocean thermal energy conversion technology development to provide a technical base for meeting the following goals:(1) demonstration by 1986 of at least one hundred megawatts of electrical capacity or energy product equivalent from ocean thermal energy conversion systems;(2) demonstration by 1989 of at least five hundred megawatts of electrical capacity or energy product equivalent from ocean thermal energy conversion systems;(3) achievement in the mid-1990’s, for the gulf coast region of the continental United States and for islands in the United States, its possessions and its territories, an average cost of electricity or energy product equivalent produced by installed ocean thermal energy conversion systems that is competitive with conventional energy sources; and(4) establish as a national goal ten thousand megawatts of electrical capacity or energy product equivalent from ocean thermal energy conversion systems by the year 1999.(Pub. L. 96–310, § 2, July 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 941.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

Pub. L. 96–310, § 1, July 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 941, provided: “That this Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the ‘Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Research, Development, and Demonstration Act’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Polaroid Corp. v. Rollins Env't Servs. (NJ), Inc., 624 N.E.2d 959 (Mass. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Polaroid Corp. v. Rollins Env't Servs. (NJ), Inc., 624 N.E.2d 959 (Mass. 1993). “The defendant appeals from a Superior Court judgment granting the plaintiffs’ motion for declaratory relief and ruling that the defendant is obligated to indemnify the plaintiffs for costs associated with a hazardous waste cleanup performed pursuant to the Comprehensive…”
Leonard v. Lentz, 297 F. Supp. 3d 874 (N.D. Iowa 2017). “1983 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); 42 U.S.C. § 9001 (b)(3)(B) ). However, where the language of a treaty has been read erroneously, it is the duty of the Judiciary to correct such erroneous interpretations to prevent the perpetuation of such errors.”
Eidem v. Eidem, 382 F. Supp. 3d 285 (S.D. Ill. 2019). “Procedural History Petitioner initiated this action on July 6, 2018 by filing a petition for the return of the children to Norway pursuant to the Hague Convention and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act ("ICARA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9001 -9011. (Doc. No. 1 (the "Petition").”
Sabogal v. Velarde, 106 F. Supp. 3d 689 (D. Md. 2015). “He has filed a Petition under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9001 et seq. (2012). seeking their return to Peru under the Hague Convention.”
Radu v. Shon, No. 4:20-cv-00246 (D. Ariz. Sept. 17, 2020). “1), brought pursuant to the Hague 17 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Convention”) 18 and its implementing legislation, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act 19 (“ICARA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9001 , et seq. (formerly 42 U.”
Radu v. Shon, No. 4:20-cv-00246 (D. Ariz. Oct. 13, 2021). “) On September 17, 2020, the Court issued an Order granting the Petition 21 and ordering the return of minor children O.S.R. and M.S.”
Radu v. Shon, No. 4:20-cv-00246 (D. Ariz. Aug. 22, 2022). “Procedural History 26 On June 8, 2020, Petitioner filed his Petition pursuant to the Hague Convention on 27 the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Convention”) and its implementing 28 legislation, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9001 ,…”
Bre v. Aguirre, No. 1:23-cv-23928 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2023). “89, and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9001 , et seq., to have her minor child, I.”
Guzzo v. Hansen, No. 4:22-cv-00015 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 3, 2022). “Background Father, an Italian citizen, and Mother, a United States citizen, met in Fall 2009 in Baltimore, Maryland, where Father was completing a postdoctoral fellowship at Johns Hopkins University and Mother was participating in an artist residency program.”
Tsuruta v. Tsuruta, 629 F. Supp. 3d 942 (E.D. Mo. 2022). “22514, as implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 22 U.”
Francis v. Culley, No. 1:20-cv-03326, 2021 WL 3660719 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2021). “Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq. (See generally Verified Petition for Warrant in Lieu of Habeas Corpus and Petition for the Return of Child to Petitioner (“Verified Petition”), Dkt.”
Paz Gomez v. Reyes Gonzalez, No. 3:24-cv-05645 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 12, 2024). “12 Petitioner, Ruben Paz Gomez, filed this case under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of 13 International Child Abduction (“Convention”) and the International Child Abductions Remedies 14 Act (“ICARA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9001 . Dkt. No. 12. Petitioner alleges his daughter was…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.