# Omnibus Energy Legislation: H.R. 4 Side-by-side Comparison > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL31427 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** June 7, 2002 - **Citation:** RL31427 ## Text Order Code RL31427 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Omnibus Energy Legislation in the 107th Congress: Side-by-side Comparisons Updated June 7, 2002 (name redacted) and (name redacted), Coordinat Resources, Science, and Industry Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Omnibus Energy Legislation in the 107th Congress: Side-by-side Comparisons Summary The House and Senate have passed two distinct versions of an omnibus energy bill (H.R. 4), the first comprehensive energy legislation in ten years. The substantial differences between the two chambers’ approaches to energy policy remain to be resolved in conference, which is expected to take place over the summer. The House version of H.R. 4, the Securing America’s Future Energy Act of 2001, which passed August 2, 2001, includes a key component of the Bush Administration’s energy strategy: opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas exploration and development. The Senate version, the Energy Policy Act of 2002, approved on April 25, 2002, leaves ANWR off-limits to drilling. The electricity provisions of the Senate-passed H.R. 4 would continue to change the regulatory requirements for the wholesale electric market. The House-passed H.R. 4 does not contain electricity provisions. In general, the Senate version would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) and give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the state utility commissions access to utility books and records. It would also repeal the mandatory purchase requirement of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) when FERC finds that a competitive electric market exists. Automobile and light truck fuel efficiency was the subject of considerable debate in both houses. In its version of H.R. 4, the House included language that calls for a reduction of 5 billion gallons in light-duty truck fuel consumption over the period of model years 2004-2010. The Senate version would charge the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with development of new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards using the administrative procedure that, since FY1996, the agency had been enjoined by Congress from initiating. However, the Senate bill also would freeze “pickup trucks” at the current light truck standard of 20.7 mpg, likely shifting the burden for achieving savings to the passenger automobile portion of the fleet. Both versions of H.R. 4 include a package of energy tax cuts, primarily tax incentives (or subsidies) for qualifying energy producers and consumers. In terms of revenue loss, the House bill cuts energy taxes by $35.4 billion over the ten-year period from FY2002 through FY2011. In contrast, the Senate bill’s ten-year projected revenue loss is about $15.2 billion. The House bill provides a greater tax cut for fossil fuel supply – about $17 billion more over ten years – than the Senate bill. Several significant provisions are contained only in the Senate-passed bill, including programs to address global climate change, loan and price guarantees for a proposed Alaska natural gas pipeline, a cutoff of oil imports from Iraq, minimum renewable energy content in motor vehicle fuel, and renewable energy requirements for electricity providers. Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Major Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Electricity Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Tax Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Nuclear Accident Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Global Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Iraq Oil Import Cutoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Ethanol and Reformulated Gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Overview of House and Senate Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Organization of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Short Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Regional Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Amendments to the Federal Power Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Amendments to the Public Utility Holding Company Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Amendments to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 . . . . . . 22 Consumer Protections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Renewable Energy and Rural Construction Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Hydroelectric Relicensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Indian Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Nuclear Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Price-Anderson Act Reauthorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Miscellaneous Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Growth of Nuclear Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 NRC Regulatory Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 NRC Personnel Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Oil and Gas Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Natural Gas Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Operating Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Pipeline Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Fuels and Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 CAFE Standards, Alternative Fuels, and Advanced Technology . . . . . . . . 64 Additional Fuel Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Federal Reformulated Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Energy Efficiency and Assistance to Low Income Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Low Income Assistance and State Energy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Federal Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Industrial Efficiency and Consumer Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Housing Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Rural and Remote Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 National Climate Change Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Sense of Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Climate Change Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Science and Technology Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Miscellaneous Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 National Greenhouse Gas Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Energy Research and Development Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Renewable Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Fossil Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Nuclear Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Fundamental Energy Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Energy, Safety, and Environmental Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Climate Change Science and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Department of Energy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Department of Agriculture Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 International Energy Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Climate Change Science and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Amendments to the Global Change Research Act of 1990 . . . . . . . . 126 National Climate Services Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Ocean and Coastal Observing System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Climate Change Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Climate Adaptation and Hazards Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Assessment and Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Forecasting and Planning Pilot Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Management of DOE Science and Technology Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Personnel and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Technology Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Critical Energy Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Department of Energy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Department of the Interior Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Iraq Oil Import Restriction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Miscellaneous Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Funding Authorizations- Tables 2 and 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Energy Tax Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Fossil Fuels Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Oil/Gas Exploration, Development, and Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Refining and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Coal Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Electricity Restructuring Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Business Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Residential Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Transportation Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Renewable and Alternative Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Business Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Residential Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Transportation Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Miscellaneous Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Index of House Non-Tax Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Index of Senate and House Tax Sections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Related CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 List of Tables Table 1. Major Provisions of House and Senate Energy Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 2. Authorized Appropriations in Senate bill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Table 3. Authorized Appropriations in House-passed H.R. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Omnibus Energy Legislation in the 107th Congress: Side-by-side Comparisons Introduction The House and Senate have passed two distinct versions of an omnibus energy bill (H.R. 4), the first comprehensive energy legislation in ten years. The substantial differences between the two chambers’ approaches to energy policy remain to be resolved in conference, which is expected to take place over the summer. The House version of H.R. 4, the Securing America’s Future Energy Act of 2001, which passed August 2, 2001, includes a key component of the Bush Administration’s energy strategy: opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas exploration and development. The Senate version, the Energy Policy Act of 2002, approved on April 25, 2002, leaves ANWR off-limits to drilling. The Senate-passed bill would make substantial changes in wholesale electricity regulation, while the House bill has no electricity provisions. Other provisions contained only in the Senate-passed bill include programs to address global climate change, loan and price guarantees for a proposed Alaska natural gas pipeline, a cutoff of oil imports from Iraq, and renewable energy requirements for electricity providers. Both bills include provisions to address motor vehicle fuel economy, nuclear accident liability, energy taxes, and authorizations of energy research and development programs (see Table 1). This report summarizes the major provisions of the House- and Senate-passed bills, provides a detailed side-by-side comparison, and lists annual funding authorizations. Major Provisions Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. H.R. 4 as passed by the House would allow for oil and gas leasing in ANWR. It contains provisions that would limit the footprint of development to 2,000 acres of the Coastal Plain. The Senate bill contains no ANWR provision. Essentially, the Senate defeated ANWR development by refusing, 46-54, to invoke cloture on a filibuster of a pro-development amendment, which was subsequently withdrawn. The U.S. Geological Survey and the Energy Information Administration have made estimates of ANWR’s hydrocarbon potential and the range of expectations for oil production. In short, recent estimates are that at $24 per barrel (in 1996 dollars, or about $26.50 in 2002 dollars), ANWR has a 95% probability of holding 2.0 billion CRS-2 recoverable barrels or more and a 5% chance of holding 9.4 billion barrels or more. The mean value in this range is 5.24 billion recoverable barrels. Under the mean value, peak production rates would range between 0.55 and 0.775 million barrels per day (mbd). Were leasing to begin within the next few years, initial ANWR production might occur around 2010. Critics of this provision contend that, even if the mean level of production were achieved, it would be only about 2.75% to 3.8% of current levels of U.S. petroleum consumption, now in the 20 mbd area. With oil imports approaching 12 mbd, ANWR would reduce imports by not much more than 6% at its highest likely output under the mean recovery estimate. Opponents contend that such levels of production would be inconsequential compared to the impact on an important environmental asset. Those favoring development note that while the amounts of oil supply are small relative to these national aggregates, 550,000 to 755,000 barrels per day is a significant amount of oil. As an energy policy factor, it could have an impact on the world supply-demand balance. An example often cited is that it is in the range of U.S. oil imports from Iraq, which the Senate-passed bill would halt for policy reasons. In 2001, the United States imported 780,000 barrels per day from Iraq. Development supporters also contend that current technology would allow ANWR exploration and production with minimal environmental impact. Electricity Regulation. The electric utility industry has been in the process of transformation. During the past two decades, technology improvements, changes in the economics for generating electricity, and new federal laws and regulations have changed the nature of electric generation and promoted markets for electricity. As a result, widespread competition is occurring on the wholesale level, and more than half of the states are moving toward retail competition. The electricity provisions of the Senate-passed H.R. 4 would continue to change the regulatory requirements for the wholesale electric market. The House-passed H.R. 4 does not contain electricity provisions. In general, the Senate version would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) and give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the state utility commissions access to utility books and records. It would also repeal the mandatory purchase requirement of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) when FERC finds that a competitive electric market exists. In addition, the Senate-passed H.R. 4 would give FERC more review authority over certain electric utility mergers and increase the value of asset transfers that would trigger FERC review. It would require FERC to apply cost-of-service rates when marketbased rates are unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential; require an electric reliability organization to develop and enforce mandatory reliability standards; provide access to the transmission system for certain intermittent generators; create an Office of Consumer Advocacy within the Department of Justice; and give states the authority to prescribe and enforce laws regarding the application of the Consumer Protection Subtitle. Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy. Automobile and light truck fuel efficiency was the subject of considerable debate in both houses. The 106th Congress had asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study on whether corporate CRS-3 average fuel economy (CAFE) levels could be adjusted without unacceptable consequences to vehicle safety, the industry, and consumer choice. This was a significant departure from previous congressional action, which since FY1996 had prohibited the spending of appropriated funds for any sort of rulemaking that would alter CAFE, effectively freezing the standards at 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) for passenger automobiles and 20.7 mpg for light trucks. The NAS study, released in July 2001, did not recommend specific CAFE increases, but did conclude that it was possible to achieve a more than 40% improvement in light truck and sport utility vehicle (SUV) fuel economy over a 10-15 year period at costs that would be recoverable over the lifetime of vehicle ownership. In its version of H.R. 4, the House included language that calls for a reduction of 5 billion gallons in light-duty truck fuel consumption over the period of model years 2004-2010. The Department of Transportation would establish fuel economy standards sufficient to achieve the required reduction. An amendment to establish a combined passenger car and truck CAFE standard of 27.5 mpg by MY2007 was defeated by 160-269. A more ambitious proposal in the Senate to establish a combined fleetwide average of 36 mpg by MY2015 never reached a vote. On March 13, 2002, the Senate voted, 62-38, for an amendment to charge the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with development of new CAFE standards using the administrative procedure that, since FY1996, the agency had been forbidden by law from initiating. However, the Senate then approved an amendment, 56-44, to freeze “pickup trucks” at the current light truck standard of 20.7 mpg, likely shifting at least some of the burden for achieving savings to the passenger automobile portion of the fleet. Tax Incentives. Both versions of H.R. 4 include a package of energy tax cuts, primarily tax incentives (or subsidies) for qualifying energy producers and consumers. For purposes of this report, a tax provision is classified according to whether it is an incentive for 1) fossil fuel supply (including coal output incentives), 2) electricity restructuring (which is also an energy supply incentive), 3) reduced fossil fuel demand through enhanced energy efficiency, and 4) reduced fossil fuel demand through alternative and renewable fuels output. A miscellaneous or “catch-all” category at the end of the tax section of this report describes provisions that are not easily categorized according to this schema. Note that the fossil fuels supply category is further subdivided according to whether a particular provision affects oil/gas exploration and production, refining and distribution, or coal output. Similarly, the energy efficiency and renewable fuels tax incentives are further categorized, as closely as possible, according to the energy consuming sector that would be primarily affected, i.e., the business (including commercial and industry), residential, or transportation sectors. In terms of revenue loss, the latest estimates show that the House bill cuts energy taxes by about $23.2 billion over the five-year period from FY2003 through FY2007, and $35.4 billion over the ten-year period from FY2003 through FY2012. In contrast, the Senate bill’s five and ten-year revenue losses are estimated at about CRS-4 $13.3 billion and $15.2 billion, respectively.1 The incentives targeted toward reducing the demand for fossil energy are, in absolute dollar terms, about the same in each bill – each bill provides about $8 billion of tax incentives. The House bill is, however, somewhat more weighted toward energy efficiency than the Senate bill. The major difference in the two bills is in the incentives for fossil fuel supply, including electricity restructuring provisions. The House bill provides a greater tax cut for fossil fuel supply – about $17 billion more over ten years – and has a broader mix of provisions, including those aimed at drilling, production, refining, and transportation of fossil fuels, than the Senate bill. Many of the fossil fuel incentives in the House version of H.R. 4 include capital investment incentives to stimulate production and distribution of oil and gas, and the production and transmission of electricity, provisions that are either not present in the Senate version or included at a much lower level. An underlying theme of the House-passed bill is that many of the nation’s recent energy problems have been caused by supply and capacity shortages resulting from demand stimulated by rapid economic growth and relatively low energy prices. Thus, while the House bill also includes incentives for reduced demand – conservation and efficiency – a primary purpose of that legislation appears to be to stimulate energy supplies. This is particularly true of the outlying years – the period 2007-2012, when many of the demand disincentives expire. In relative terms, however – i.e., in relation to the size of the energy industry – the supply incentives are modest (and even more modest in the Senate bill), although they would constitute a significant expansion over existing energy tax law (more so for the House bill). Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay field, currently a major source of U.S. crude oil, holds 26 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas that cannot be produced for lack of a transport system. Those supplies represent the equivalent of 1.25 years of current domestic consumption, which amounts to about 22 tcf per year and is expected to grow to 29 tcf in 2010. Other nearby fields hold more proven gas reserves, and it is likely that, were further exploration to be undertaken, additional gas would be found on the Alaska North Slope. Several proposals have been made to bring North Slope gas to market in the years since the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) was authorized for crude oil transportation. Pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act, the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System (ANGTS) was authorized in 1977. This pipeline would follow the TAPS route, the Dalton Highway to Fairbanks, AK, and then the Alaska Highway, crossing the Yukon Territory and British Columbia into Alberta. This route is a focal point of the Senate bill. 1 The most recent estimates of revenue losses are in: U.S. Congress. Joint Committee on Taxation. Comparison of Division C of H.R.4, The “Energy Tax Policy Act of 2001,” as Passed by the House of Representatives and Division H of H.R. 4, The “Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2002,” as Amended by the Senate. Prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. May 23, 2002. JCX-43-02. CRS-5 The other pipeline proposal under current consideration by corporate sponsors is the Mackenzie Delta route, which would begin at Prudhoe Bay, head east, transiting offshore under the Beaufort Sea (off ANWR), and come ashore in the Mackenzie Bay. It would then connect with existing infrastructure, which now ends at Norman Wells, Northwest Territories. This pipeline would transit a part of Canada where large gas deposits are thought to exist. It could be a catalyst for their development. From one perspective, this might be seen as beneficial to North American gas supply. On the other hand, it could be viewed by producers of potentially more expensive North Slope gas as unwelcome competition. Both the Senate and House versions of H.R. 4 address the route issue, precluding the off-shore proposal and directing U.S. project development toward a route that initially follows TAPS. The Senate bill provides two financial incentives. The first offers up to $10 billion in DOE loan guarantees for project financing, of which the sponsors must put down 20%. Secondly, a tax credit would support Alaska North Slope gas at an inflation-adjusted price of $3.25 per thousand cubic feet (mcf), at the point where the gas would enter the currently existing pipeline system in Alberta. Nuclear Accident Liability. An extension of the Price-Anderson Act, which addresses liability for damages to the general public from nuclear incidents, is included in the Senate-passed H.R. 4 but not in the House-passed bill. However, after leaving Price-Anderson out of its version of the omnibus energy bill, the House passed a separate Price-Anderson extension bill (H.R. 2983) that contains provisions similar to those later adopted in the Senate. Under the Price-Anderson Act (primarily Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2210), the owners of commercial reactors must assume all liability for radiological damages awarded to the public by the court system, but their total liability is limited to the amount provided by private insurance and an industry self-insurance system. The Price-Anderson Act also authorizes the Department of Energy (DOE) to indemnify contractors who operate hazardous DOE nuclear facilities. The limit on DOE contractor liability is the same as for commercial reactors, except when the limit for commercial reactors drops because of a decline in the number of covered reactors. Significant differences between the Price-Anderson provisions in the Senatepassed H.R. 4 and House-passed H.R. 2983 involve how long indemnification authority should be extended and the formula for determining the commercial reactor liability limit. In addition, the House bill would raise each reactor’s maximum annual payment for accident damages from $10 million to $15 million and impose an inflation adjustment, while the Senate bill would leave the annual payment level unchanged. There are also several House provisions not contained in the Senate bill, including a provision that would authorize the federal government to sue DOE contractors to recover at least some of the compensation that the government had paid for any accident caused by intentional DOE contractor management misconduct. Such cost recovery would be limited to the amount of the contractor’s profit under the contract involved, and no recovery would be allowed from nonprofit contractors. CRS-6 Global Climate Change. The House-passed version of H.R. 4 contains only one directly related climate change provision: authorizing funding for climate change protection programs within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In contrast, several titles of H.R. 4 as passed by the Senate contain provisions to address the global climate change issue. Finding growing evidence that greater greenhouse gas concentrations are contributing to global climate changes, the Senatepassed bill calls for the United States to demonstrate international leadership in addressing the issue. Title X of the Senate version provides for organizational changes within the federal government to focus on climate change issues. Specifically, a new Office of National Climate Change Policy (ONCCP) would develop a national response strategy; a new Interagency Task Force would serve as the primary forum through which federal agencies assist the new ONCCP in developing and updating the national strategy; and a new Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Climate Change Technology would oversee research and development of new technology and provide analytical support and data. Further climate change activities are detailed in Titles XI and XIII. Specifically, Title XI would establish a new national greenhouse database while Title XIII would focus the research, development, demonstration, and technology deployment programs within several federal agencies on global climate change science and mitigation of climate change. Iraq Oil Import Cutoff. The Senate bill would ban oil imports from Iraq. Imports could be resumed upon presidential certification that Iraq was in compliance with U.N. resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction and the oil-for-food program, and ceased the practice of supporting the families of suicide bombers. Additionally, the imports could resume if the President were to find that they were in the interest of national security. In 2001, the United States imported 778,000 barrels per day of Iraqi oil, an amount equal to 6.7% of the nation’s total imports. It is likely that the resulting import deficit here would be made up by supplies from other exporting nations. To what extent Iraq would be unable to find customers for this oil, and actually export less as a result, is hard to determine. But, under this bill, it would lose its largest single customer. A possible outcome is that Iraq would sell fewer barrels than it might otherwise export, and because of the difficulty in replacing the United States as a customer, those barrels might be sold at a discount relative to similar oil from other exporters. Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Section 264 of the Senate version of H.R. 4 proposes that retail electricity suppliers (utilities, except for municipal and cooperative utilities) be required to obtain a minimum percentage of their power production from a portfolio of new renewable energy resources. The minimum energy target or “standard” would start at 1% in 2005, rise at a rate of about 1.2% every two years, and peak at 10% in 2019. CRS-7 Eligible resources include solar, wind, ocean, and geothermal energy, most forms of biomass, landfill gas, and incremental hydropower. A generation offset from renewables used on site to reduce the measured demand from the grid is also eligible. The base for calculating the target production level excludes power from eligible renewables, hydropower, and municipal solid waste. Thus, states with a large amount of existing biomass, hydro, or other renewable power generation would have a proportionately lower target for new generation. Tradable credits are created, which can be purchased in place of power from other suppliers, to help retailers meet the target at the lowest cost. The credits would function like the Clean Air Act emission allowance trading system, which has lowered compliance costs for air pollution regulations. The bill’s credit trading provision is made flexible by allowing a supplier to “borrow” from expected future credits to fill a present shortfall or to “carry forward” surplus credits to future years. A cost cap for the credits is set as the lesser of 1.5 cents/kwh (Section 271) or 200% of the average market value of the credits. The lower the cost cap, the more it may restrict portfolio diversity and deter generation from solar and other highercost renewable resources. Utilities sought a cost cap near 1 cent/kwh, while environmental groups sought a cap near 4 to 5 cents/kwh. State experience suggests that a cost cap is key to compliance cost control and may also allow compliance cost to flow through as a business cost. Some see a federal RPS as a way to substitute a more market-oriented mechanism for the PURPA Section 210 requirement that utilities purchase power from renewables at an administratively determined “avoided cost.” Ten states, including Texas, and a few foreign governments, have an RPS that provides a base of experience for the federal proposal. Ethanol and Reformulated Gasoline. There are several key fuels provisions in Title VII of the Senate version. The bill would ban the use of MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) in gasoline. MTBE is commonly used to meet the oxygen content standard in federal reformulated gasoline (RFG). However, the additive has been detected in groundwater in several states. In addition to a ban on MTBE use, the oxygen requirement would also be eliminated. However, the current RFG oxygen requirement benefits ethanol, MTBE's chief competitor. To protect the existing market for ethanol and promote its expansion, the bill would require the use of renewable fuels in gasoline. Ethanol is the most widely used renewable fuel, and would be used to meet the majority of the requirement. Effectively, the bill would nearly triple U.S. ethanol consumption by 2012. In addition, renewable fuel blenders would be shielded from defective product liability. Overview of House and Senate Versions Although both versions of H.R. 4 are omnibus energy bills, a number of the most significant provisions are included only in one or the other. In many cases, this reflects fundamentally different views on energy policy between the two chambers. Table 1 briefly summarizes the major aspects of the two bills. CRS-8 Table 1. Major Provisions of House and Senate Energy Bills Provision Senate House Electricity restructuring Changes regulatory requirements to emphasize market rates. No provision. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) No provision. Opens ANWR to oil and gas leasing. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Requires new CAFE standards, except for pickup trucks. Requires a reduction in fuel consumption by new light trucks. Energy taxes Provides $15.2 billion in energy tax incentives over a ten-year period. Provides $35.4 billion in energy tax incentives over a ten-year period, more than half for fossil fuel supply. Global climate change Establishes federal offices to focus on global climate change, authorizes R&D. No specific provisions. Appliance efficiency standards Requires new standards for central air conditioners, heat pumps, and appliance standby power. Sets standard for appliance standby power. Nuclear accident liability (Price-Anderson Act) Extends Price-Anderson coverage for DOE facilities. No provisions. (Separate Price-Anderson extension, H.R. 2983, passed by House.) Alaska natural gas pipeline Provides loan and price guarantees for Alaska natural gas pipeline and forbids proposed Beaufort Sea route. No loan or price guarantees, but forbids Beaufort Sea route. Iraqi oil cutoff Forbids direct or indirect importation of Iraqi oil until certain conditions are met. No provisions. CRS-9 Renewable energy content in motor vehicle fuel Requires motor vehicle fuel sold in the United States to contain a minimum volume of ethanol or other renewable fuel. No provisions. Renewable Portfolio Standard Requires electric utilities to provide minimum percentages of power from renewable sources. No provisions. Energy Program Authorizations, FY2002-FY2006 Authorizes $53.8 billion (see table 2). Authorizes $34.9 billion (see table 3). Organization of Report The remainder of this report provides a side-by-side comparison of the provisions of H.R. 4 as passed by the House and Senate. The non-tax sections are organized in the numerical order of the Senate-passed version, followed by a numerical index of the non-tax sections in the House-passed version. Tax provisions are organized by topic, followed by a numerical index of the tax sections in both versions of H.R. 4. Funding authorizations for the two bills are shown in separate tables for the House and Senate versions, which are cross referenced to each other. Further analysis and background are available in the CRS products cited at the end of the report. The following analysts in the CRS Resources, Science, and Industry Division contributed to this report: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (name redacted), electric utilities; (name redacted), energy security; Carl Behrens, hydropower; (name redacted), Native Americanergy, en general authorizations; (name redacted), nuclear energy; (name redacted), federal energy leasing, coal; Larry Kumins, oil and gas; Dan Morgan, science programs; (name redacted), climate change; Paul Rothberg, pipeline safety; (name redacted), conservati on and renewable energy; Steve Stitt, public power; Brent Yacobucci, alternative fuels, climate change. CRS-10 Short Title2 Provision Current Law Senate House Short titles and table of contents No provision. Sec. 1. This Act may be cited as the “Energy Policy Act of 2002.” Sec. 2. Table of Contents. Sec. 100. This Act may be cited as the “Securing America’s Future Energy Act of 2001,” or the “SAFE Act of 2001” (section includes Table of Contents). Sec. 100. Division A may be cited as the “Energy Advancement and Conservation Act of 2001.” Sec. 6001. Division F may be cited as the “Energy Security Act.” Comments Regional Coordination Provision Current Law Senate House Policy on regional coordination No current law. Sec.101. The policy of the federal government is to encourage states to coordinate, on a regional basis, policies to maximize the reliability of energy services, including electric transmission and generation, gas transportation, storage, and distribution, and fuel conservation. No similar provision. 2 Comments Provisions are organized by Senate section numbers. To find a specific House section by its number, see the index at the end of these tables. CRS-11 Federal support for regional coordination No current law. Sec. 102. The Department of Energy is directed to provide technical assistance to states and regional organizations to assist with activities defined in Sec. 101. No provision. Electricity Amendments to the Federal Power Act Provision Current Law Senate House Definitions The Federal Power Act defines an electric utility as “any person or State agency (including any municipality) which sells electric energy; such term includes the Tennessee Valley Authority, but does not include any Federal power marketing agency” (16 U.S.C. 796). Sec. 201. The Federal Power Act is amended to add federal power marketing agencies to the definition of an electric utility. A definition of a transmitting utility is added to the Federal Power Act. A transmitting utility includes state and municipally owned or operated transmission facilities involved in interstate commerce or transmission of electricity at wholesale. No provision. Comments CRS-12 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Electric utility mergers Under Section 203(a) of the Federal Power Act, FERC review for transfer of assets applies for transactions valued at $50,000 or more (16 U.S.C. 824b). Sec. 202. The Federal Power Act is amended to give FERC review authority for transfer of assets valued in excess of $10 million. FERC must give state public utility commissions and governors reasonable notice in writing. FERC must establish rules to comply with this section. No provision. This provision significantly increases the value of the asset transfer that would trigger FERC review. The section has prompted questions about the potential for market power abuse because of the increase in asset value before FERC merger review authority is triggered. However, once it is triggered, FERC is given additional jurisdiction to protect consumer interests. Market-based rates Section 205 of the Federal Power Act requires just and reasonable rates to be charged for transmission or sale of electric energy (16 U.S.C. 824d). Sec. 203. FERC may approve market-based rates when the seller and its markets meet certain criteria. When the Commission determines the market-based rate is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, FERC must determine a just and reasonable rate. No provision. Provision could limit FERC’s options to respond to rates found to be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential rates. Refund effective date Refunds for rates that FERC finds to be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential begin a minimum of 60 days after a complaint is filed (16 U.S.C. 824e(b)). Sec. 204. Section 206(b) of the Federal Power Act is amended to allow the effective date for refunds to begin at the time of the filing of a complaint with FERC but not later than 5 months after filing of a complaint. No provision. Currently, refunds begin a minimum of 60 days after the filing of the complaint. This section would allow refunds to be retroactive to the date complaint is filed with FERC. CRS-13 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Open access transmission by certain utilities The Federal Power Act (Section 201(f)) does not apply to federal Power Marketing Administrations, state entities or rural electric cooperatives (16 U.S.C. 824). Sec. 205. FERC is authorized, by rule or order, to require unregulated transmitting utilities (Power Marketing Administrations, state entities, and rural electric cooperatives) to charge rates comparable to what they charge themselves, and also require that the terms and conditions of the sales are comparable to those required of other utilities. Exemptions are established for utilities selling less than 4 million megawatt-hours of electricity per year and for utilities that own or operate transmission facilities that are not necessary to facilitate a nationwide interconnected transmission system. No provision. Expands FERC’s transmission authority in ordering open access to include Power Marketing Administrations, state entities and rural electric cooperatives. Electric reliability standards No current law. Sec. 206. FERC-approved electric reliability organizations will develop and enforce reliability standards for the bulk-power system. Standards are enforceable by the electric reliability organization and FERC. The provision does not apply to Alaska or Hawaii. No provision. Would give an electric reliability organization (currently the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC)) the primary authority to develop reliability standards. CRS-14 Provision Current Law Senate House Market transparency rules No current law. Sec. 207. Within 180 days after enactment, FERC is required to issue rules to establish an electronic system that provides information about the availability and price of wholesale electric energy and transmission services. Commercial or financial information that FERC determines to be privileged, confidential, or otherwise sensitive is exempt from disclosure. No provision. Access to transmission by intermittent generators No specific law. Sec. 208. FERC must require transmitting utilities to provide service to solar and wind generators at rates that do not unduly prejudice or disadvantage the generators for scheduling deviations. FERC may exempt a transmitting utility from the requirements of this provision if the solar and wind generators are likely to have an adverse impact on reliability. No provision. Comments Transmitting utilities would be able to charge higher rates to solar and wind generators if the intermittent nature of their electricity generation is likely to have an adverse impact on the reliability of the transmission system. CRS-15 Provision Current Law Senate House Enforcement Electric utilities are subject to the criminal penalty section of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 825o(c)). Sec. 209. The exemptions from the criminal penalty section of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 825o(c)) for certain activities including wheeling and sales by Exempt Wholesale Generators are repealed. The civil penalty section of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 825o-l) is extended to include sections of this Act. No provision. Comments Amendments to the Public Utility Holding Company Act Provision Current Law Senate House Short title The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (15 U.S.C. 79 et seq). Sec. 221. This subtitle may be cited as the “Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2002.” No provision. Comments CRS-16 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Definitions 15 U.S.C. 79b Sec. 222. The following terms are defined: affiliate; associate company; Commission; company; electric utility company; gas utility company; holding company; holding company system; jurisdictional rates; natural gas company; person; public utility; public utility company; state commission; subsidiary company, and voting security. No provision. The definitions of the terms affiliate, electric utility company, gas utility company, holding company, holding company system, subsidiary company, and voting security are changed from current law. The terms jurisdictional rates, natural gas company, and public utility are not included in the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. CRS-17 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA) In general, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 regulates the structure of holding companies by prohibiting all holding companies that are more than twice removed from their operating subsidiaries, federally regulates holding companies of investor-owned utilities, and provides for Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulation of mergers and diversification proposals. Registered holding companies and subsidiaries are required to have SEC approval prior to issuing securities; all loans and intercompany financial transactions are regulated by the SEC; and a holding company can be exempt from PUHCA if its business operations and those of its subsidiaries occur within 1 state or within contiguous states (15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.). Sec. 223. PUHCA is repealed. No provision. Currently under PUHCA, a holding company can acquire securities or utility assets only if the SEC finds that such a purchase will improve the economic efficiency and service of an integrated public utility system. It has been argued that reform to allow diversification would improve the risk profile of electric utilities in much the same way as in other businesses: The risk of any one investment is diluted by the risk associated with all investments. However, concerns have been expressed that PUHCA repeal could exacerbate market power abuses in an industry where vigorous competition may not yet exist. State regulators have expressed concerns that increased diversification could lead to such abuses as cross-subsidization: a regulated company subsidizing an unregulated affiliate. CRS-18 Provision Current Law Senate House Federal access to books and records Registered holding companies and subsidiary companies are required to preserve accounts, cost-accounting procedures, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and books that FERC deems necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for protection of investors and consumers (15 U.S.C. 79o). Sec. 224. Federal access is provided to the books and records of holding companies and their affiliates. Federal officials must maintain the confidentiality of such books and records. No provision. State access to books and records Under the Federal Power Act, state commissions may examine the books, accounts, memoranda, contracts, and records of a jurisdictional electric utility company, an exempt wholesale generator that sells to such electric utility, and any electric utility company or holding company that is an associate company or affiliate of an exempt wholesale generator (16 U.S.C. 824). Sec. 225. A jurisdictional state commission may make a written request to a holding company or any associate company for access to specific books and records, which must be kept confidential. Response to such requests is mandatory. Compliance with this section is enforceable in U.S. District Court. No provision. Exemption authority No current law. Sec. 226. FERC is directed to promulgate rules to exempt qualifying facilities, exempt wholesale generators, and foreign utility companies from the requirements of Section 224. No provision. Comments CRS-19 Provision Current Law Senate House Affiliate transactions The Federal Power Act requires that jurisdictional rates are just and reasonable and prohibits crosssubsidization (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.). Sec. 227. FERC retains the authority to prevent crosssubsidization and to assure that jurisdictional rates are just and reasonable. No provision. Applicability No specific provision. Sec. 228. Except as specifically noted, this subtitle does not apply to the United States government, a state or any political subdivision of a state, or a foreign governmental authority operating outside the United States. No provision. Effect on other Regulations No specific provision. Sec. 229. FERC or a state commission is not precluded from exercising its jurisdiction under otherwise applicable laws to protect utility customers. No provision. Enforcement 16 U.S.C. 825e-825p Sec. 230. FERC has authority to enforce this provision under sections 306-317 of the Federal Power Act. No provision. Comments CRS-20 Provision Current Law Senate House Savings provisions Not applicable. Sec. 231. Persons may continue to engage in legal activities in which they have been engaged or are authorized to engage in on the effective date of the subtitle. The subtitle does not limit the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Federal Power Act or the Natural Gas Act. No provision. Implementation Not applicable. Sec. 232 Not later than 18 months after enactment, FERC will promulgate regulations necessary to implement this subtitle and submit to Congress recommendations for technical or conforming amendments to federal law that might be necessary to carry out this subtitle. No provision. Transfer of resources The Securities and Exchange Commission maintains books and records and regulates security transactions (15 U.S.C. 79 e a t seq.). Sec. 233. The Securities and Exchange Commission will transfer all applicable books and records to FERC. No provision. Comments No time frame is provided. CRS-21 Provision Current Law Senate House Interagency review of competition in the wholesale and retail markets for electric energy No current law. Sec. 234. An interagency task force is created to perform a study and analysis of electric competition within U.S. wholesale and retail markets. The task force will submit a report not later than 1 year after the effective date of this Act. No provision. GAO study on implementation No current law. Sec. 235. The General Accounting Office is directed to study the effectiveness of the federal government and the states in: 1) preventing anti-competitive practices; and 2) promoting competition and efficient energy markets that benefit consumers. This report must be submitted to Congress no later than 24 months after the effective date of this Act. No provision. Effective date No applicable law. Sec. 236. Eighteen months after enactment, this subtitle will take effect. No provision. Authorization of appropriations No applicable law. Sec. 237. Necessary funds to carry out this subtitle are authorized to be appropriated. No provision. Comments CRS-22 Provision Current Law Senate House Conforming amendments to the Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq. Sec. 238. The Federal Power Act is amended to reflect the changes to the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. No provision. Comments Amendments to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Real-time pricing standard No current law. Sec. 241. States must consider a standard for real-time pricing of electricity for retail customers. Real-time pricing on the retail level would reflect fluctuations of wholesale rates. Also contains provision on timeof-use metering. In states allowing retail competition, distribution company must provide the same time-of-use metering and communication service to all of its retail customers. No provision. Installation of real-time metering and communications technology would be necessary to fully implement retail real-time and time-ofuse pricing. CRS-23 Provision Current Law Senate House Adoption of additional standards No current law. Sec. 242. States are required to consider implementation of technical and pricing standards for distributed generation interconnection to the local distribution system, a standard for each electric utility to develop a plan to develop a diverse fuel mix and technology mix for generating electricity, and a standard to increase the efficiency of fossil fuel generators. No provision. Technical assistance No current law. Sec. 243. The Secretary of Energy is authorized to provide technical assistance to the states to help develop the standards under Section 242. No provision. Comments CRS-24 Provision Current Law Senate House Cogeneration and small power production purchase and sale requirements Electric utilities are required to purchase electricity generated by qualifying facilities at the utilities’ avoided cost (16 U.S.C. 824a-3). Sec. 244. Mandatory purchase requirements under §210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) will not apply to new contracts after the date of enactment if FERC finds that a competitive electric market exists. FERC may enforce recovery of “stranded costs” incurred by utilities because of PURPA-mandated cogeneration and small power purchases. Ownership limitations under PURPA are repealed. No provision. Net metering for renewable energy and fuel cells No current law. Sec. 245. All utilities are subject to net metering requirements. Residential system size limits are 500 kilowatts. State public utility commissions have authority to determine whether mandatory net metering will be implemented within their states. No provision. Comments Provision would maintain current state authority to determine whether to implement this section’s net metering standard. Currently, 34 states require utilities to provide net metering to some or all classes of customers. CRS-25 Consumer Protections Provision Current Law Senate H.R. 4 Information disclosure No provision. Sec. 251. The Federal Trade Commission must issue rules requiring electric utilities to provide electric consumers information on the cost and type of service being offered. No provision. Consumer privacy No current law. Sec. 252. The Federal Trade Commission is directed to issue rules prohibiting an electric utility from sharing its customers’ individual information without prior written approval by a consumer. No provision. Office of Consumer Advocacy No current law. Sec. 253. An Office of Consumer Advocacy is established within the Department of Justice. The Office may represent the interest of energy customers on matters concerning rates or service at FERC hearings, at U.S. court proceedings, and hearings and proceedings of other federal regulatory agencies and commissions. No provision. Comments CRS-26 Provision Current Law Senate H.R. 4 Comments Unfair trade practices No current law. Sec. 254. The Federal Trade Commission is required to issue rules prohibiting slamming and cramming. No provision. Slamming occurs when an electric utility switches a customer’s electric provider without the consumer’s knowledge. Cramming occurs when an electric utility adds additional services and charges to a customer’s account without the permission of the customer. Applicable procedures Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 533). Sec. 255. The Federal Trade Commission will adhere to the notice and comment rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 533) for rules issued under this subtitle. No provision. Federal Trade Commission enforcement Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a). Sec. 256. Violations of rules under this subtitle will be treated as violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 57a). No provision. State authority No applicable law. Sec. 257. States are given authority to prescribe and enforce laws, rules, or procedures regarding the practices of this subtitle. No provision. Gives states the right to codify and enforce laws, rules, and procedures that may be in direct conflict with the Consumer Protection subtitle. CRS-27 Provision Current Law Senate H.R. 4 Application of subtitle No applicable law. Sec. 258. This subtitle applies only to electric utilities whose retail sales exceed 500 million kilowatt-hours per calendar year. No provision. Definitions 16 U.S.C. 2602 Sec. 259. Defines aggregate consumer information and consumer information. Electric consumer, electric utility, and state regulatory authority have the same meaning as such terms under PURPA. No provision. Comments Renewable Energy and Rural Construction Grants Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Renewable energy production incentive EPAct Sec. 1212 provides a 1.5 cent/kwh incentive for power produced from wind and biomass by state and local governments and nonprofit electrical cooperatives. Funded by appropriations, it was created to parallel the renewable energy production tax credit for businesses (Title XIX). Sec. 261. Eligibility is extended to certain public utilities. Qualifying resources are expanded to include landfill gas, incremental hydro, and ocean energy. Funding for hydro may not exceed 30% of the total. Sec. 602. Qualifying resources are expanded to include landfill gas. Authorizes “such sums,” and there is no funding limit for any resource. The Senate bill extends the eligibility to a broader range of additonal sources. CRS-28 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Assessment of renewable energy resources No existing requirement. Sec. 262. DOE is required to report annually on resource potential, including solar, wind, biomass, ocean, geothermal, and hydro. Sec. 601. DOE is directed to publish an annual report on resource potential. The provisions are nearly identical except the Senate version includes ocean energy, while the House version does not. Federal purchase requirement No existing requirement. Sec. 263. Federal agencies are required to purchase power produced from renewables, starting at 3% in FY2003, and rising to 7.5% in FY2010. No provision. Requires that a certain percentage of the total electricity purchased by the federal government be generated from renewable energy sources. Energy Sun labeling program No existing program. No provision. Sec. 141A. A governmentindustry partnership is established to create an “Energy Sun” labeling program that promotes renewable and alternative energy products. The features of this new program would parallel the features of the existing Energy Star program for energyefficient products (see Sec. 926 of the Senate version and Sec. 141 of the House version). CRS-29 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Renewable portfolio standard (RPS) No existing requirement. Sec. 264. A renewable energy production target is set for retail suppliers, starting at 1% in 2005 and rising to 10% by 2019. Tradable credits are created to help compliance. Eligible renewable resources include solar, wind, geothermal, biomass (including municipal solid waste), landfill gas, a generation offset (on-site renewables generation that reduces demand), and incremental hydropower. The baseline estimate excludes eligible renewables, municipal solid waste, and hydropower. Special credits apply to incremental hydropower, generation offsets, production on Native American lands, and co-firing with conventional resources. A non-compliance penalty is provided. No provision. Several states have enacted an RPS. The Senate bill allows states to have a stronger requirement than the federal standard. (Sec. 271 of the Senate bill redefines a 3 cents/kwh credit in Sec. 264 to be 1.5 cents/kwh.) CRS-30 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Renewable energy on federal land No existing requirement. Sec. 265. The Secretary of the Interior is directed to create a pilot program to develop wind and solar energy on federal lands. Sec. 6102. The Secretary of the Interior is required to inventory the potential to develop solar, wind, geothermal, and coal resources on federal lands. Also, Sec. 6105 directs, where practicable, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to use energy efficient technologies in vehicles and in public and administrative buildings associated with management of the National Park System and other public lands. The Senate bill requires implementation while the House bill requires a study. Energy conservation in the Interior Department No existing requirement. No provision. Sec. 6601. The Department of the Interior is required to study and report on opportunities to conserve energy in its facilities and to reduce conventional energy use by substituting use of alternative energy sources, including the use of solar power and fuel cells. CRS-31 Provision Current Law Senate House ANWR revenue for renewable energy No provision. No provision. Sec. 6512. Half of the adjusted revenues from bonus payments from oil and natural gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is directed to a new Renewable Energy Technology Investment Fund in the U.S. Treasury Department. The Fund shall be used to finance research and studies on renewable energy and alternative fuels. Comments CRS-32 Provision Current Law Senate House Geothermal energy Geothermal energy production on federal lands is charged a royalty of 10%15% (Geothermal Steam Act Sec. 5). No provision. Sec. 6301-6307. The maximum royalty for existing geothermal leases is reduced from 15% to 8%. Further, the royalty is eliminated over a five-year period for new qualified leases and new qualified expansions of 10% or more. Low temperature (less than 195 degrees Fahrenheit) resources are exempted from royalties, but are instead required to pay a fee ranging from $100 to $1,000. Prohibits geothermal leasing on Forest Service lands if a regional forester determines that the lands cannot be adequately protected. The Interior Department is directed to determine whether pending lease applications require competitive bidding. All public lands controlled by military departments are opened to leasing, subject to Interior Department regulations. Further, the Department is required to review and report on the status of all leasing moratoria and withdrawls from moratoria. Comments CRS-33 Provision Current Law Senate House Reimbursement for costs of NEPA analyses, documentation, and studies for geothermal leasing No provision. No provision. Sec. 6308. If adequate appropriated funds are not available to conduct the necessary reviews for a geothermal lease under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in a timely manner, the Secretary of the Interior may reimburse the lessee or applicant with royalty credits for conducting the NEPA work. Carpet waste as alternative energy source No existing requirement. No provision. Sec. 801. DOE is authorized funding to support a single grant to develop the feasibility of burning postconsumer carpet in cement kilns as an alternative energy source. Comments General Provisions Provision Current Law Senate House Change RPS price cap from 3 cents to 1.5 cents No provision. Sec. 271. The 3 cent/kwh price cap for tradable credits in Sec. 264, which establishes a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), shall be considered 1.5 cents/kwh. No provision. Comments CRS-34 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Bonneville Power Administration Bonds Current BPA borrowing authority is $3.75 billion (16 U.S.C 838k, P.L. 98-50). Sec. 272. Bonneville Power Administration borrowing authority is increased by $1.3 billion to provide transmission system improvements. No similar provision In the FY2003 Congressional Budget Request, BPA requested an increase of $700 million in borrowing authority. CRS-35 Hydroelectric Relicensing Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Alternative conditions and fishways No provision. Sec. 301 (a) and (b). Agencies imposing conditions or prescribing fishway construction on hydropower license applicants under Section 4(e) and Section 18 of the Federal Power Act must consider alternative measures proposed by the applicant, and accept those alternative measures if the alternative condition “provides for the adequate protection and utilization of the reservation,” or if the alternative fishway “will be no less protective of the fish resources than the fishway initially prescribed,” and would either cost less or result in more power production. No provision in this section prohibits other interested parties from proposing alternative conditions. Sec. 401 (a) and (b). Agencies imposing conditions or prescribing fishway construction on hydropower license applicants under Section 4(e) and Section 18 of the Federal Power Act must consider alternative measures proposed by the applicant, and accept those alternative measures if the alternative condition “provides no less protection for the reservation,” or if the alternative fishway “will be no less effective than the fishway initially prescribed,” and would either cost less or result in more power production. Senate language substituting “fish resources” for “fishway” is aimed at protecting “all fish resources, not just those fish species that are harvested either commercially already or with sport fishery,” according to Senator Smith. CRS-36 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Time of filing application License applicants must file 24 months prior to expiration of old license. Sec. 301 (c). License applicants must file 36 months prior to expiration for licenses that expire in 2008 and thereafter. No similar provision. Aimed at reducing the number of annual interim licenses that “do not provide certainty for consumers or the utility and result in delays in environmental mitigation and enhancement,” according to Senator Smith. No similar provision. Sec. 402. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must collect data on the time and costs involved in the hydro licensing process. No provision. Sec. 6401. Within 12 months of enactment, the Secretary of the Interior will submit a study that describes existing capacity at hydroelectric facilities under Interior Department jurisdiction. In addition, the study will identify costs of producing additional hydroelectric power from each facility as well as describe the impact that increased hydroelectric production would have on irrigation, fish, wildlife, Indian tribes, river health, water quality, navigation, recreation, fishing, and flood control. Data collection procedures Study of increasing power production at existing hydroelectric facilities No provision. CRS-37 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Installation of powerformer at Folsom Power Plant, California No provision. No provision. Sec. 6402. The Bureau of Reclamation may borrow from the United States Treasury the cost of a powerformer to be installed at the Bureau of Reclamation’s Folsom Power Plant in California. The Secretary of the Interior is also directed to seek contributions from power users. A powerformer would replace both the generator and transformer. This new technology increases the overall efficiency of plant operations and generates electricity at voltage levels necessary for electricity to be placed directly on the transmission grid. Study of increased operational efficiencies at hydroelectric projects No provision. No provision. Sec. 6403. The Secretary of the Interior is to conduct a study to determine whether operational methods and water scheduling techniques could be modified at hydroelectric facilities with capacity greater than 50 megawatts to maximize energy production. Within 18 months of enactment, the Secretary will submit a report on the Department’s findings. CRS-38 Provision Current Law Senate House Electricity savings at Bureau of Reclamation pumping facilities No provision. No provision. Sec. 6404. With the consent of irrigation customers, the Bureau of Reclamation will shift its water pumping operations to periods of offpeak electricity demand. This section does not affect any existing obligations to provide electric power, water, or other benefits from Bureau of Reclamation facilities. Comments Indian Energy Provision Current Law Senate House Buy Indian Act No energy provision. No similar provision Sec. 6602. Amends “Buy Indian Act” to include energy products. Comprehensive Indian energy program No provision. Sec. 401. A comprehensive Indian energy program at the DOE is established to assist tribes in meeting their energy needs and expanding opportunities to develop energy resources on tribal lands. A grant program and a loan guarantee program for Indian energy development are established. Federal agencies may give a preference to purchasing Indian energy. No similar provision Comments CRS-39 Provision Current Law Senate House Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs No provision. Secs. 402-403. Within the DOE, an Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs is created to administer the programs from the previous section, 401. Appropriations are authorized. No similar provision Siting energy facilities on tribal lands No provision. Sec. 404. Indian tribes may directly lease land and rightsof-way for energy facilities, without case-by-case review by the Secretary of the Interior, if the tribe develops, and the Secretary approves, tribal regulations, and the term of the lease does not exceed 30 years. No similar provision Indian mineral development act review No provision. Sec. 405.The Secretary of the Interior is required to undertake a review and make recommendations regarding tribal opportunities under the Indian Mineral Development Act. No similar provision Renewable energy study No provision. Sec. 406. The Secretary of Energy is required to report on energy consumption and renewable energy development potential on Indian land, including identification of barriers to the development of renewable energy on tribal land. No similar provision Comments CRS-40 Provision Current Law Senate House Federal Power Marketing Administrations None Sec. 407. The Bonneville Power Administration and Western Area Power Administration are authorized to assist in developing distribution systems that provide power to Indian tribes using the federal transmission system. No similar provision Feasibility study of combined wind and hydropower demonstration project None. Sec. 408. DOE, in conjunction with the Army and the Interior Department, is to study the feasibility of obtaining a marketable, firm electricity source from wind energy generated on tribal lands connected with hydropower generated by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers at the Missouri River powerplants. No similar provision Comments CRS-41 Nuclear Power Price-Anderson Act Reauthorization Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Short Title The Price-Anderson Act, dealing with liability for nuclear accidents, generally consists of Sec. 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA, 42 U.S.C. 2210). Key terms are defined at 42 U.S.C. 2014. Sec. 501. This subtitle (sections 501-509) may be cited as the “Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2002.” No provision. The House-passed version of H.R. 4 does not contain PriceAnderson provisions; they were included in a separate bill (H.R. 2983) passed by the House on November 27, 2001, described below: H.R. 2983 Sec. 1. This Act may be cited as the “Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001.” Extension of NRC indemnification authority for commercial nuclear power plants and other licensees Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) authority to provide indemnification under Price-Anderson to new reactors and other licensees expires August 1, 2002 (AEA Sec. 170 c.). Secs. 502(a), 502(c). NRC indemnification authority is extended through August 1, 2012. No provision. H.R. 2983 Secs. 2(a), 2(c). NRC indemnification authority is extended through August 1, 2017. (Without the extension, existing reactors would continue to be covered by Price-Anderson, but new reactors would not.) Sec. 14. Before providing PriceAnderson coverage to a new reactor, NRC must consult with the Office of Homeland Security about whether the reactor’s design and location provide adequate public protection in case of a terrorist attack. CRS-42 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Extension of DOE indemnification authority for nuclear contractors DOE authority to indemnify nuclear contractors against radiological damage claims by members of the public expires August 1, 2002 (AEA Sec. 170 d.). Sec. 502(b). DOE’s indemnification authority is extended indefinitely. No provision. H.R. 2983 Sec. 2(b). DOE indemnification authority is extended through August 1, 2017. (Without an extension, new DOE contracts would not include Price-Anderson indemnification, although existing contracts would still be covered.) Nuclear incident liability limits The liability limit for public damages resulting from a nuclear incident by a DOE contractor is about $9.5 billion. The contractor liability limit is based on the limit for commercial nuclear reactors (AEA Sec. 170 d.). The commercial reactor liability limit is equal to the maximum available liability insurance, plus maximum contributions of $63 million per reactor (adjusted for inflation since 1988), plus a 5% surcharge, currently totaling about $9.5 billion. Compensation contributions are paid at a rate of no more than $10 million per reactor per year (AEA Sec. 170 b.). Sec. 503. The DOE contractor liability limit is raised to $10 billion, subject to an inflation adjustment under Section 506. No provision. H.R. 2983, Sec. 4. Same as Senate bill. Sec. 3. Maximum total contributions by each commercial reactor following an accident are raised to $94 million (to be adjusted for inflation every five years after enactment). Maximum annual contributions per reactor are raised from $10 million to $15 million, to be adjusted for inflation. Total available reactor incident compensation increases to about $10 billion. The Senate bill leaves the current reactor incident compensation formula unchanged. CRS-43 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Incidents outside the United States The liability limit for nuclear incidents outside the United States is $100 million (AEA Sec. 170 d., e.). Sec. 504. The limit is raised to $500 million. No provision. H.R. 2983, Sec. 5. Same as Senate bill. Sec. 10. The federal government may not accept liability for nuclear incidents in nations found to support terrorism. Reports on PriceAnderson extension or modification No future reports on this subject required. Sec. 505. DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) shall submit reports to Congress by August 1, 2008, to recommend continuation or modification of the PriceAnderson Act. No provision. H.R. 2983, Sec. 6. Same reports as the Senate bill, but the deadline is August 1, 2013. Inflation adjustment for liability limits NRC every five years must adjust for inflation, using the aggregate percentage change in the Consumer Price Index, the maximum compensation contribution that each reactor must make following a nuclear incident (AEA Sec. 170 t.). If the NRC inflation adjustment raises the reactor liability limit above the existing DOE contractor limit, the contractor limit is raised to the same level (AEA Sec. 170 d.). Sec. 506. In addition to the NRC inflation adjustment, DOE must make a similar adjustment of the $10 billion nuclear contractor accident liability limit every five years. No provision. H.R. 2983, Sec. 7. Similar to Senate bill. (The House and Senate bills would eliminate the existing link between commercial reactor and DOE contractor liability limits, requiring a separate inflation adjustment for DOE contractors.) CRS-44 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Civil penalties for DOE nuclear contractors Specific nonprofit DOE contractors who violate nuclear safety regulations are exempt from civil penalties. DOE may automatically remit nuclear safety fines paid by any nonprofit educational institution (AEA Sec. 234A.). Sec. 507. The exemption for specific nonprofit DOE contractors is replaced by provisions limiting nuclear safety penalties on any nonprofit contractor to the amount of the management fee it has earned under a DOE contract within any one-year period. DOE authority to remit fines paid by nonprofit educational institutions is repealed. No provision. H.R. 2983, Sec. 16. Similar to Senate bill. Sec. 13. Indemnified nuclear contractors at DOE nonweapons sites must follow industrial safety rules equivalent to those of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and pay civil penalties for violations. Sec. 15. If DOE has to pay compensation for an accident caused by the intentional misconduct of a for-profit contractor, the Attorney General may file a lawsuit to recover such compensation from the contractor, up to the amount of profit earned on the contract. Treatment of modular reactors All commercial nuclear reactors with electric generating capacity of 100 megawatts or more are subject to Price-Anderson’s maximum payments for accident damages and requirements for insurance coverage (AEA Sec. 170 b.). Sec. 508. Two or more reactors at a single site, each with electric generating capacity of 100-300 megawatts and totaling no more than 1,300 megawatts, shall be treated as a single reactor in assessing accident compensation contributions and insurance requirements. No provision. H.R. 2983, Sec. 8. Same as Senate bill. (This provision would allow a “modular” nuclear plant made up of several small reactors to purchase insurance coverage as if the plant consisted of a single reactor. The entire modular plant also would only be liable for the accident compensation payments of a single reactor.) CRS-45 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Effective date Not applicable. Sec. 509. The increased nuclear liability limits in this subsection shall apply only to accidents that occur after the date of enactment. No provision. H.R. 2983, Sec. 9. Same as Senate bill. Comments Miscellaneous Provisions Provision Current Law Senate House Government uranium stockpile sales DOE may sell its uranium stockpiles under certain conditions (42 U.S.C. 2297h10). Sec. 511. With certain exceptions, DOE uranium sales are restricted to 3 million pounds per year from 2003-2009, rising to 10 million pounds per year after 2012. Sec. 309. The federal government is prohibited from selling or transferring any uranium through March 23, 2009, except for emergencies and certain prior commitments. Sales of government-owned uranium after that date are limited to three million pounds per year. Thorium cleanup reimbursement DOE is authorized to reimburse up to $140 million in government-related cleanup costs to the owner of a thorium processing site (42 U.S.C. 2296a). Sec. 512. The thorium reimbursement authorization is raised to $365 million. No provision. Senate language is nearly identical to thorium reimbursement provisions in H.R. 3343, passed by the House December 18, 2001. CRS-46 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Fast Flux Test Facility No comparable provision. Sec. 513. DOE is prohibited from restarting the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), a test reactor at Hanford, Washington, if the proposed missions can be conducted at other facilities that are already operating. No provision. Sec. 2344(c) of the House bill prohibits nuclear energy operation and maintenance funds from being used for FFTF, although restart is not specifically mentioned. DOE announced December 19, 2001, that FFTF would be permanently closed. Nuclear Power 2010 Program No specific provision. Sec. 514. DOE shall conduct a cost-shared program with industry to “allow for the construction and startup of new nuclear plants in the United States by 2010.” No specific provision. DOE is currently conducting a Nuclear Power 2010 program within the Nuclear Energy Technologies program. Spent Nuclear Fuel Research DOE shall conduct a research program on alternative means and technologies for disposal of high-level radioactive waste (42 U.S.C. 10202). Sec. 515. A DOE Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research is established to research, develop, and demonstrate technologies for treatment, recycling, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and highlevel radioactive waste. The technologies should be based on reactors and accelerators and minimize nuclear weapons proliferation concerns. Sec. 2321. DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology shall conduct a research and development program on advanced technologies for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The technologies should be resistant to nuclear weapons proliferation and support alternative spent fuel disposal strategies. Spent fuel recycling or reprocessing involves the extraction of plutonium and uranium from spent nuclear fuel for use in new fuel. Supporters contend that it could extend domestic energy supplies and reduce the hazard posed by nuclear waste, while opponents are concerned that the extracted plutonium could be used for weapons. DOE currently plans to use reprocessing technology to treat spent fuel from the closed Experimental Breeder Reactor-II in Idaho. CRS-47 Provision Current Law Senate House Reactor Decommissioning Pilot Program No provision. Sec. 516. DOE shall decontaminate and decommission the sodiumcooled test reactor in northwest Arkansas. No provision. Comments Growth of Nuclear Energy Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Commercial reactor license period For a commercial nuclear reactor that receives a combined construction and operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the initial 40-year license period could begin when NRC grants a combined license for a reactor, before construction has started and years before the start of operation (AEA Section 103 c.). Sec. 521. A reactor’s operating period under a combined license shall be no shorter than if separate construction and operating licenses had been issued. Sec. 301. The 40-year license period for a combined license will not begin until NRC determines that the completed reactor is ready to start operating. Both provisions would provide the longest potential operating period for new reactors under a 40-year combined license (which can be renewed). CRS-48 NRC Regulatory Reform Provision Current Law Senate House Commercial reactor antitrust reviews NRC must provide copies of commercial reactor license applications to the Attorney General, who must review them for antitrust problems within 180 days. If problems are found, the Attorney General may become a party to the licensing proceedings (42 U.S.C. 2135). Sec. 531. After receiving notice from NRC, the Attorney General shall review commercial license applications for antitrust problems within 90 days. Other antitrust review procedures shall not apply to new commercial reactor license applications. No provision. Protection of reactor decommissioning funds No specific provision. Sec. 532. Funds set aside for decontamination and decommissioning of commercial nuclear reactors shall not be used to satisfy creditors for unrelated purposes. Similar protection is provided to insurance payments for nuclear incidents under the PriceAnderson Act. No provision. Comments CRS-49 NRC Personnel Crisis Provision Current Law Senate House Elimination of pension offset for critical NRC personnel No provision. Sec. 541. If NRC has a critical need for the skills of a retired employee, NRC can hire the retiree as a contractor and exempt him or her from the annuity reductions that would otherwise apply. No provision. NRC training program No specific provision. Sec. 542. Funding is authorized for NRC to carry out a training and fellowship program to develop critical nuclear safety skills. No provision. NRC cost recovery from other government agencies Federal agencies must pay fees to NRC for certain licensed activities (AEA Sec. 161 w.). No provision. Sec. 302. NRC may impose licensing and other cost-based fees on all NRC-licensed activities conducted by other federal agencies. Extension of limitation on depleted uranium funds An account in the Treasury must be preserved through FY2002 to pay for treatment of depleted uranium hexafluoride at former DOE plants in Ohio and Kentucky (P.L. 105-204). No provision. Sec. 303. The depleted uranium treatment account must be preserved for that purpose through FY2005. Comments CRS-50 Provision Current Law Senate House Transcripts of NRC meetings No provision. No provision. Sec. 304. If a quorum of NRC Commissioners meets to discuss official business, a transcript of non-confidential discussions at the meeting must be made available to the public. Paducah enrichment plant decommissioning plan No provision. No provision. Sec. 307. The Secretary of Energy must submit a plan to Congress for decontaminating and decommissioning surplus facilities and DOE material storage areas at the Paducah, Kentucky, uranium enrichment plant. Feasibility of locating commercial reactors at DOE sites No provision. No provision. Sec. 308. The Secretary of Energy must determine the feasibility of building commercial nuclear power plants at existing DOE sites. Comments CRS-51 Oil and Gas Production Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Permanent authority to operate the Strategic Petroleum Reserve The SPR requires periodic reauthorization. Sec. 601. Authorization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is made permanent, subject to appropriations. This eliminates the need for periodic reauthorization. No comparable provision. This provision would avoid periods such as was experienced in 2000, when authorization expired at the end of March and Congress was unable to reach agreement on reauthorization until November. Federal oil and gas management The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, provides the authority for onshore federal lands to be leased for a specified period of time for oil and gas development. Sec. 602. The Secretary of the Interior shall ensure timely action on applications for oil and gas leases and drilling permits on federal lands. Sec. 6221-6225. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior must conduct a study of “impediments” to oil and gas leasing on federal lands. The Secretary of the Interior must eliminate unwarranted denials and stays of lease issuances. Federal oil and gas acreage limitations Current acreage limitations, royalty policies and reclamation requirements for oil and gas are spelled out in the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181). Secs. 603. Lease acreage limitations are altered. No provision. Orphaned wells on federal land Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. Sec. 604. The Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall establish a program that ensures the remediation of orphaned wells on federal land. No provision. CRS-52 Provision Current Law Senate House Federal technical assistance for abandoned oil and gas wells Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. Sec. 605. The Secretary of Energy shall establish a technical assistance program to help states quantify and mitigate risks from abandoned wells. No provision. Offshore oil and gas suspensions Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1334). Sec. 606. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) can suspend offshore oil and gas operations to reevaluate geological data if the suspension would prevent waste from unnecessary well drilling. Sec. 6231. The Secretary of the Interior may allow suspension of operations under any OCS oil and gas lease to allow time for reinterpretation of exploratory data under salt sheets. Offshore oil and gas royalties The Deepwater Royalty Relief Act of 1996 (DWRRA) established the depths at which a specified amount of production is exempt from royalties for leases held between 1996-2000. New rules modified the DWRRA for leases held after November 2000. No provision. Sec. 6201-6204. The Royalty Relief Extension Act of 2001 extends the original Deepwater Royalty Relief Act of 1995 for two years. Coalbed methane study Coalbed methane R&D is carried out by the DOE and funded through the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill. Sec. 607. The Secretary of the Interior and others shall study the effects of coalbed methane production on water resources. No provision. Comments CRS-53 Provision Current Law Senate House Oil and gas production royalty and tax policy evaluation Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. Sec. 608. The Secretary of Energy and others must evaluate the effect of oil and gas royalty and tax policies on oil and gas production. No provision. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) The SPR was initially authorized in 1975 (P.L. 94163). Sec. 609. The President must fill the SPR to its current capacity “as soon as practicable” by the “most practicable and cost-effective means.” No comparable provision. Hydraulic fracturing No provision. Sec. 610. EPA is required to conduct a study of the effects of hydraulic fracturing of hydrocarbon-bearing geologic formations on underground sources of drinking water and determine whether regulation is necessary. If regulations are deemed unnecessary, states will be relieved from further obligation to regulate hydraulic fracturing. No provision. Safe Drinking Water grant and preservation of oil and gas resource data No provision. Secs. 611-612. Funding is authorized for a grant to Alabama under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the U.S. Geological Survey may preserve and provide public access to oil and gas resource data. No provision. Comments CRS-54 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Federal oil and gas royalties-in-kind and other provisions Royalty -in-kind authority is provided by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, as amended (43 U.S.C 1331, et. seq.). No provisions. Secs. 6232-6235. When the federal government sells any physical quantities of oil and gas received as royalty-inkind payments, it must sell it for market value and must receive revenues greater than or equal to those received under a comparable cash payment royalty. States and provinces around the Great Lakes are encouraged to prohibit or cease offshore oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes issue became one of state versus federal control over oil and gas development, particularly in Lake Michigan. In February 2002 the Michigan legislature approved a bill to ban oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. Michigan Governor Engler did not oppose the measure. Sec. 613. The Secretary of the Interior shall report to Congress on plans to resolve conflicts between development of coal and coalbed methane in the Powder River Basin. No provision. The Bureau of Land Management can issue development leases for two different resources on the same tract of land. The potential for conflict arises from overlapping coal and gas leases in the Powder River Basin. A provision in the FY2002 Energy and Water Development bill (P.L.10766) bans oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. Coal leasing in the Powder River Basin Coal is currently being leased on federal lands under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C.181). CRS-55 Natural Gas Pipelines Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Provision Current Law Senate House Short title and purposes The Natural Gas Act (NGA) gives FERC authority to certificate interstate pipelines. The Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act (ANGTA), 15 U.S.C. 719, creates a process where a project in the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System may be recommended and approved. Secs. 701 and 703. This subtitle may be called the “Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2002.” Its purpose is to expedite the completion of one or more pipelines to deliver Alaskan natural gas to the contiguous 48 states. No provision. Findings No provision. Sec. 702. North Slope gas supply is declared to be in the national interest. No provision. Expedited certification ANGTA, NGA both address this matter. Sec. 704. FERC must issue a certificate for a proposed Alaskan gas pipeline based on Natural Gas Act criteria, notwithstanding the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act. A certificate must be issued within 60 days of a final environmental impact statement. No provision. Comments FERC has issued a certificate for the Alaska Gas Transport System CRS-56 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Prohibition on certain pipeline route No provision. Sec. 704(d). No federal approval may be granted for any natural gas pipeline transiting submerged lands or the shoreline of the Beaufort Sea, nor for any gas pipeline crossing the U.S.-Canadian border north of 68 degrees north latitude. Sec. 701. Same. This prohibition would block proposed natural gas pipeline routes from the Alaska North Slope that could open the U.S. market to Arctic Canadian natural gas resources. Environmental reviews The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) calls for environmental review and analysis. Sec. 705. FERC is designated as the lead agency for environmental reviews of an Alaska gas pipeline. FERC must issue a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) within 12 months after determining the pipeline certificate application is complete. The final EIS is to be issued 6 months after the draft statement. Sec. 6503(c). Parameters are set for NEPA reviews of oil and gas leases on the ANWR Coastal Plain. Pipeline expansion No provision. Sec. 706. FERC has authority to order pipeline expansion, contingent upon approved tariffs and firm shipper agreement. No provision. CRS-57 Provision Current Law Senate House Federal coordinator No provision. Sec. 707. A new executive branch office, the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transport Projects, is established to coordinate the expeditious discharge of all federal agency activities and compliance with this act. No provision. Judicial review No specific provision. Sec. 708. Legal challenge to agency actions under this bill are directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Sec. 6508. Issues relating to Coastal Plain referred to U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit State jurisdiction over in-state gas delivery No specific provision. Sec. 709. Intrastate gas deliveries will not be regulated by FERC. No provision. Loan guarantee No provision. Sec. 710. Loan guarantees of up to $10 billion are provided for an Alaska gas transport system certified by FERC. Project sponsors are required to “put 20% down”; other terms and conditions are to be worked out by the Secretary of Energy. No provision. Comments Treats sales of gas from this pipeline as intrastate transactions. CRS-58 Provision Current Law Senate House Study of alternative means of construction No provision. Sec. 711. If no commercial pipeline application is filed within 18 months of enactment, DOE is instructed to conduct a study of having the project undertaken by a government corporation. No provision. Clarification of Alaska Natural Gas Transport Act (ANGTA) and authority to amend terms and conditions to meet current project requirements No provision. Sec. 712. Nothing in this bill affects ANGTA. DOE has authority to amend existing transport plan to bring it up to date. No provision. Definitions No provision. Sec. 713. This section defines the concept of Alaska natural gas as applying to the North Slope, including the Continental Shelf. It also defines the pipeline system as that part within the United States, and subject to FERC jurisdiction. No provision. Comments CRS-59 Provision Current Law Senate House Sense of the Senate No provision. Sec. 714. It is the sense of the Senate that commercialization of Alaskan gas is economically important to both the United States and Canada. It is urged that North American steel be used in pipeline construction, and that the project sponsors negotiate a project labor agreement to expedite construction. No provision. Pipeline construction training program No provision. Sec. 715. The Secretary of Labor is to report to Congress within 6 months on the training requirements needed for Alaska residents to participate in pipeline construction. The Secretary is tasked with establishing such program within 1 year of the report. No provision. Comments CRS-60 Operating Pipelines Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Historic Preservation Act and pipeline environmental review No provision. Sec. 721 The Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in coordination with the Chairman of FERC, is to form an interagency task force that will develop an interagency memorandum of understanding to expedite pipeline projects. The task force is to consist of the lead agency chairs, and the heads of BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers, Forest Service, EPA, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Sec. 6104. The Secretary of Energy, in coordination with FERC, must form a task force of the relevant agencies to develop an interagency agreement to expedite the approval of pipeline projects. Among the perceived bottlenecks in the approval of new gas pipeline projects that the Bush Administration seeks to streamline is the environmental review process. Sec. 702. Pipelines are exempted from the National Register of Historic Places under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) unless they have been abandoned or their owners consent to such inclusion. At issue regarding historic preservation is whether pipeline companies needing FERC approval to expand or renovate facilities should be compelled by FERC to fund and perform historical documentation and preservation. Pipeline Safety Provision Current Law Senate bill House bill Comments Short Title; Amendment of Title 49 U.S.C. Title 49 of the U.S. Code includes federal law outlining many of the legal authorities for federal activities, including regulation and enforcement, that influence the safety and security of pipeline infrastructure. Sec. 741. This subtitle (sections 741-783) may be cited as the “Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002.” No provision. Secs. 741-783 include the previously passed Senate pipeline safety bill (S. 235) (with minor changes) and several provisions pertaining to pipeline security and related issues. CRS-61 Provision Current Law Senate bill House bill Comments Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 Pipeline safety provisions are located 49 U.S.C. 601. Secs. 742- 765. To address concerns regarding human errors causing pipeline releases, operators are required to prepare a plan that would be designed to enhance the qualifications of pipeline personnel and to reduce the likelihood of accidents. The plan is to provide for training and periodic reexamination of pipeline personnel. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to certify that those plans are sufficient to ensure continuation of safety operations (Sec. 763). To enhance the safety of pipeline operations, companies are required to implement integrity management plans for interstate pipelines that traverse environmentally sensitive areas and high density population areas. Each operator's plan would need to be based on risk analysis and include periodic assessment of the integrity of the pipeline no less than every five years unless certain conditions are met (Sec. 764). No provisions. Selected pipeline safety provisions are described. CRS-62 Provision Current Law Senate bill House bill Pipeline safety education, state oversight, and authorizations 49 U.S.C. 601 Secs. 766- 778. To reduce damage to infrastructure caused by third parties, each owner or operator of a pipeline facility is required to carry out a continuing program to educate the public regarding pipeline safety, including providing information on the use of one-call notification systems prior to excavation (Sec. 766). Operators must maintain liaison with various state or local entities and provide information, upon their request, on the integrity management program implemented at a facility and other aspects of facility operations, including the location of pipelines (Sec. 768). For FY2003 through FY2005, the Office of Pipeline Safety program is authorized at specified levels of funding, with amounts set aside to carry out pipeline integrity program and research and development activities (Sec. 772). No provision. Comments CRS-63 Provision Current Law Senate bill House bill New England pipeline transmission and storage study No provision. Sec. 779. FERC, in conjunction with DOE, is to conduct a study of the pipeline transmission system and storage facilities in New England, and determine its adequacy to meet current and projected consumer and power generation needs, as well as seasonal demands. The study should identify potential transport bottlenecks and deficiencies in the environmental review and permitting process. A report to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and relevant House committee is required within 120 days of enactment. No provision. Pipeline securitysensitive information and criminal penalties 49 U.S.C. 601 Secs. 780- 783. To enhance pipeline security, if the Department of Transportation obtains security-sensitive information regarding pipelines, such information shall be released only with adequate protection to specified parties (Sec. 781), and criminal penalties are provided for damaging or destroying pipeline facilities (Sec. 783). No provision. Comments CRS-64 Fuels and Vehicles CAFE Standards, Alternative Fuels, and Advanced Technology Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Increased fuel economy standards The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94163), enacted in 1975, established procedures whereby the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) follows a rulemaking process to establish model year CAFE standards for passenger automobiles and light-duty trucks. Fuel economy of passenger automobiles is currently 27.5 mpg; lightduty truck CAFE is 20.7 mpg. Sec. 801. The Secretary of Transportation must issue not later than 15 months after enactment “new regulations setting forth increased fuel economy standards” reflecting “maximum feasible fuel economy levels” consistent with factors set out in the original CAFE legislation (P.L. 94-163). (However, Sec. 811 freezes “pickup truck” CAFE at 20.7 mpg.) An environmental assessment is required of the effects of the new standards, and $2 million is authorized to carry out this section. Sec. 201. The Secretary of Transportation must establish fuel economy standards for light-duty trucks manufactured in model years 2004-2010 that will result in a gasoline consumption savings of at least 5 billion gallons of gasoline from what this portion of the fleet would have consumed had the standard for this segment of the vehicle fleet remained at 20.7 miles-per-gallon. Some argue that the savings called for in the House bill could be achieved with an increase in light-truck CAFE of 1-2 mpg. The Senate provision freezing the CAFE standard for “pickup trucks,” which are undefined, will narrow the scope of the Senate language. Concurrent with congressional consideration of energy legislation, the Administration, on Feb. 7, 2002, issued a request for comments on CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks for some or all of model years 2005-2010, taking into account the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study on fuel economy released in 2001, and other issues. CRS-65 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Expedited procedures for congressional increase in fuel economy standards. No current law. Sec. 802. In the event that the Secretary of Transportation does not comply with Sec. 801 within 15 months of enactment, Congress may establish CAFE standards under expedited procedures. No comparable provision. Sec. 802 does not specify a specific CAFE standard that Congress may enact under expedited procedures. Considerations to be taken into account in setting maximum feasible average fuel economy standards Current law requires Secretary of Transportation to consider “technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy.” [49 Sec. 32902(2)(f)] Sec. 803. In addition to considerations in current law, the Secretary of Transportation must consider: (1) CAFE effects on reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil; (2) motor vehicle and passenger safety; (3) air quality; (4) the relative competitiveness of manufacturers; (5) levels of employment in the United States; (6) the cost and lead time for new technologies; (7) potential benefits of advanced technology vehicles; (8) impact of manufacturers’ near-term compliance costs on their ability to develop advanced technologies (9) the January 2002 CAFE report of the National Research Council. No comparable provision. The Senate legislation considerably lengthens the number of conditions to be analyzed and weighed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in setting standards. The implications, if any, for the rule-making process are unclear. It is possible that these new considerations, if retained in the final bill, will be legally challenged and might delay the rulemaking process as amended by the legislation. CRS-66 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Consideration of prescribing different average fuel economy standards for nonpassenger automobiles No current law. No comparable provision. Sec. 202. The Secretary of Transportation will consider the merits and benefits of basing fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles upon some measure of vehicle weight. The Secretary should consider any recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences in its fuel economy study. If a weight-based system is adopted, an individual manufacturer could trade credits among the different models produced by that manufacturer. The original distinction between cars and light trucks in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94163) assumed that vehicles dedicated to passenger travel would be subject to tougher CAFE standards, whereas light-duty trucks intended for hauling and other commerce would be required to meet an appropriately less stringent standard. In recent years, it has become apparent that vehicles such as sport utility vehicles (SUVs) – which otherwise meet the definition of “light duty trucks” – are being used as passenger vehicles but are not held to the CAFE standard of passenger automobiles. Extension of maximum fuel economy increase for alternative vehicles Manufacturers earn a “CAFE credit” for producing dualfueled vehicles. The maximum increase in a manufacturer’s CAFE owing to inclusion of dual-fueled vehicles in its fleet is limited to 1.2 mpg for model years 1993-2004, and 0.9 mpg for model years 2005-2008. Sec. 804. Maximum increase in a manufacturer’s CAFE owing to inclusion of dualfueled vehicles in its fleet is limited to 1.2 mpg for model years 1993-2008, and 0.9 mpg for model years 20092013. Sec. 203. An existing incentive that provides CAFE credits to manufacturers of dual-fueled vehicles is extended through model year 2008. The fuel economy study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended elimination of the credit, contending that these vehicles are rarely operated on anything but conventional gasoline, while the credit permits the manufacturer to sell less-efficient vehicles. CRS-67 Provision Current Law Senate House Study of feasibility and effects of reducing use of fuel for automobiles Not in current law. No comparable provision. Sec. 207. The National Academy of Science is to undertake a study on the feasibility and effects of reducing automobile fuel use – “by a significant percentage” – by model year 2010. The study is to particularly look at the promise of fuel cell technology and alternatives to the present structure of the CAFE standards. Procurement of alternative fueled and hybrid light-duty trucks for federal fleets Sec. 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486) required that, by FY1999, 75% of vehicle purchases for a federal fleet of 20 or more light-duty motor vehicles be alternative-fueled vehicles. Exceptions were made for emergency, military and law enforcement vehicles, among other uses. Sec. 805. Five percent of light duty trucks procured for federal fleets in FY2005FY2006 must be alternativefueled or hybrid vehicles. This requirement increases to 10% after FY2006. Sec. 205. In addition to the 75% of federal motor vehicles purchased each year that must be alternative-fueled under Sec. 303(b)(1) of P.L. 102486, 5% of federal fleet vehicles purchased during FY2004-FY2005, and 10% in FY2006 and thereafter, must be alternative-fuel or hybrid vehicles. Comments The targets specified in existing law have not been met. CRS-68 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Use of alternative fuels Energy Policy Act of 1992 [42 U.S.C. 13220]. Of the vehicles purchased by federal and state agencies, and alternative fuel providers in a given year, a percentage must be alternative fuel vehicles. Sec. 806. Dual-fueled vehicle fleets in executive branch agencies must use alternative fuels 100% of the time by Jan. 1, 2009, but the Secretary of Transportation is authorized to waive the requirement to 50% of the time by Jan. 1, 2009, and 75% by Jan. 1, 2011. No waivers may be extended beyond the end of 2012. Additional waiver authority is provided if the alternative fuel “is not reasonably available” in a particular geographic area. Sec. 206. Federal fleets must reduce the purchase of “petroleum-based nonalternative fuels” during FY2004-FY2008 by some percentage from a baseline, as designated by the Secretary of Energy. Under current law, there is no specific requirement to use alternative fuels in these vehicles. Sec. 807. Appropriations of $225 million to DOE are authorized for FY2003 to expand R&D for advanced technologies to improve the cleanliness of automobiles. Emphasis is placed on (1) fuel cells, including high temperature membranes for fuel cells and fuel cell auxiliary power systems; (2) hydrogen storage; (3) advanced vehicle engine and emission control systems; (4) advanced batteries and power electronics for hybrid vehicles; (5) advanced fuels; and (6) advanced materials. No comparable provision. Hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicles CRS-69 Provision Current Law Senate House Diesel fueled vehicles No current law. Sec. 808. DOE is required to accelerate R&D for diesel combustion and after treatment technologies with the objective of enabling diesel technology to meet Tier 2 emission standards not later than 2010. [These standards will apply to cars and light trucks after the 2003 model year.] No comparable provision. Fuel cell demonstration No current law. Sec. 809. The Secretaries of Energy and Defense are to jointly carry out a program to accelerate use of fuel cell technology in military and non-military uses. Technologies developed in the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles and Freedom Car programs are specifically targeted. No comparable provision. Bus replacement No current law. Sec. 810. The Secretary of Transportation is required to carry out a study to determine how best to replace dieselfueled buses with buses that are hybrids, or buses that use fuel cells or cleaner burning alternative and renewable fuels. No comparable provision. Comments CRS-70 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Average fuel economy standard for pickup trucks No specific provision. Sec. 811. The CAFE standard for “pickup trucks” is frozen at 20.7 mpg, the current standard for light-duty trucks. No comparable provision. The House legislation requires savings in the fuel consumption of light-duty trucks, which embraces light trucks, SUVs and passenger vans. The Senate language would appear to require some definition of a third category of vehicle – “pickup trucks” – in addition to passenger cars and light-duty trucks. Depending upon how pickups are defined, the Senate provision might not exclude SUVs and vans from future rulemakings to set a higher CAFE standard. Annual report on U.S. energy independence. No current law. No comparable provision. Sec. 802. National energy plans required by the Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L. 95-91) must include a section evaluating progress the United States has made toward a goal of not exceeding 50% dependence on foreign oil sources by 2010. The plan shall also address what legislative or administrative actions are needed to meet this goal. The House language does not specify whether this is dependence measured as gross imports or net imports. In calendar year 2001, total imports, expressed as a percentage of petroleum products supplied, was 59.3%; as an expression of net imports, it was 54.3%. No comparable provision was included in the Senate bill, but it was amended on the floor to establish a consumer energy commission that will undertake a one-time study on price spikes and how they might be averted in the future. CRS-71 Provision Current Law Senate House Comments Exception to HOV passenger requirements for alternative fuel vehicles States may permit exemptions from high occupancy (HOV) restrictions for inherently low emission vehicles [23 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)]. Sec. 812. States are permitted to exempt one-passenger alternative fuel vehicles from HOV restrictions. Sec. 151. States are permitted to grant exceptions to HOV restrictions for alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles. While not codified in federal law, HOV exemptions for such vehicles are already provided by some states because of their low emissions. Grants for alternative fuel vehicles The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) [23 U.S.C. 149] provides grant funding for the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructure, but does not provide funding for advanced diesel vehicles. No provision. Sec. 2101- 2105. A pilot program is established within the Department of Energy to provide grants to state and local governments, and metropolitan transit authorities, to aid in the purchase of alternative fuel and advanced diesel vehicles, and the infrastructure necessary to support them. Alternative fuel data collection No provision. Sec. 813. The Administrator of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) is required to conduct a survey on alternative fuels and publish monthly data on quantities of fuel produced, imported, and consumed, as well as production costs, marketing costs, and market prices. No provision. Currently, EIA publishes annual data on fuel consumption and vehicle purchases. CRS-72 Provision Current Law Senate House Green school buses The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) [49 U.S.C. 5309(m)(1)(C)] provides grant funding for research and demonstration of fuel cell buses, mainly for transit purposes. Secs. 814- 816. A pilot program is established by the Departments of Energy and Transportation to provide grants to local governments and contractors that provide school bus service for public school systems to aid in the purchase of alternative fuel and advanced diesel buses, and the infrastructure necessary to support them. In addition, Section 815 establishes a pilot program for the development and demonstration of fuel cell school buses. Sec. 2141- 2144. Similar to the Senate version, except that the program would be administered solely by the Department of Energy. Further, the House version has potentially more stringent requirements for emissions from eligible vehicles. Biodiesel fuel use credit Energy Policy Act of 1992 [42 U.S.C. 13220]. Of the vehicles purchased by a federal, state, and fuel provider fleet in a given year, a percentage must be alternative fuel vehicles. Any excess vehicle purchases may be credited toward future years. Fleet operators may meet up to 50% of the requirement in a given year by purchasing biodiesel fuel, but the use of biodiesel fuel does not generate credits. Sec. 817. Fleet operators may claim alternative fuel vehicle credits for excess purchase of biodiesel fuel. Further, fleet operators may use biodiesel fuel to meet up to 100% of required purchases in a given year. [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL31427. Public record. Not legal advice.