Omnibus Energy Legislation, 109th Congress: Side-by-Side Assessment of House and Senate Versions of H.R. 6
Congressional research reportJul 25, 2005
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Order Code RL33006
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Omnibus Energy Legislation, 109th Congress:
Side-by-Side Assessment of House and Senate
Versions of H.R. 6
July 25, 2005
-name redacted- and -name redact
Coordinators
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Omnibus Energy Legislation, 109th Congress:
Side-by-Side Assessment of House and Senate
Versions of H.R. 6
Summary
The House approved an omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6) on April 21, 2005, that
would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas leasing,
substantially change oversight of electric utilities, increase the use of alternative
motor fuels, provide $8.1 billion in energy tax incentives, and authorize numerous
energy R&D programs. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 6 on June 28 without
ANWR provisions but with $14.1 billion in tax incentives — including a nuclear
energy production credit — and provisions on global climate change. Highlights of
the bills include:
Electricity. Both the House and the Senate versions of the bill would repeal the
Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), but the Senate bill has provisions
for more stringent oversight of utility mergers than the House version. Standard
market design (SMD) would be remanded to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) by the House bill, while the Senate version would terminate the
rulemaking altogether.
Renewable Energy. An increase in renewable fuel and ethanol consumption to
5 billion gallons annually by 2012 would be mandated by the House bill, as opposed
to 8 billion gallons in the Senate bill. The Senate bill includes a “renewable portfolio
standard” (RPS) — rejected in the House — requiring utilities to generate at least
10% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020.
MTBE. Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive widely used to
meet Clean Air Act requirements, has caused water contamination. The House and
Senate bills would phase out the use of MTBE with some possible exceptions and
provide funds for MTBE cleanup, with some differences. The House version would
provide protection for fuel producers and blenders of renewable fuels and MTBE
from defective product lawsuits, while the Senate bill would cover renewable fuels
but not MTBE.
Energy Taxes. The House bill would reduce energy taxes by about $8.1 billion
over 11 years, as compared with $14.1 billion in the Senate version. A nuclear
energy production tax credit is included among the Senate incentives.
ANWR. The House-passed bill would authorize oil and gas exploration,
development, and production in ANWR, with a 2,000-acre limit on production and
support facilities. No ANWR provisions are included in the Senate version.
Energy Production on Federal Lands. Both bills include numerous provisions
to increase energy production on federal lands. The Senate version of H.R. 6 would
require an inventory of oil and natural gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS), while the House version would not.
This report will not be updated.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Major Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Electricity Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Renewable Fuel Standard and MTBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Energy Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Nuclear Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Renewable Portfolio Standard and Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Domestic Energy Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Overview of House and Senate Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Organization of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Federal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Energy Assistance and State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Energy-Efficient Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Public Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Renewable Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Hydroelectric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Oil and Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Petroleum Reserve and Home Heating Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Production Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Access to Federal Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Refining Revitalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Clean Coal Power Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Clean Power Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Coal and Related Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Indian Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Nuclear Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Price-Anderson Act Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
General Nuclear Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Advanced Reactor Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Nuclear Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Vehicles and Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Existing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Hybrid Vehicles, Advanced Vehicles, and Fuel Cell Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Clean School Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Automobile Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Hydrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Science Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Research Administration and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Energy Efficiency — Vehicles, Buildings, and Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Energy Efficiency — Distributed Energy and Electric Energy Systems . . . 92
Renewable Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Nuclear Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Fossil Energy — Research Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Fossil Energy — Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas
and Other Petroleum Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Department of Energy Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Reliability Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Transmission Infrastructure Modernization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Transmission Operation Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Transmission Rate Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Amendments to PURPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Repeal of PUHCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Market Transparency, Enforcement, and Consumer Protection . . . . . . . . 132
Merger Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Economic Dispatch and Other Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Energy Tax Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Energy Infrastructure Tax Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Conservation and Energy Efficiency Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Alternative Minimum Tax Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Other Fossil Fuels Incentives — Oil and Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Other Fossil Fuels Incentives — Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Renewable Energy Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
General Tax Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Tax Increases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Non-Tax Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Other Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Ethanol and Motor Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Underground Storage Tank Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Boutique Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Renewable Energy — Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Geothermal Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Hydropower — Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Oil and Gas — Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Production Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Access to Federal Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Naval Petroleum Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Miscellaneous Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Coal — Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Energy Development in Arctic Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Set America Free (SAFE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Grand Canyon Hydrogen-Powered Transportation Demonstration . . . . . . . . . . 228
Additional Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Incentives for Innovative Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
National Climate Change Technology Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Climate Change Technology Deployment in Developing Countries . . . . . 238
Index of Senate Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Appendix A: Hydraulic Fracturing (Sec. 327 House Bill) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Appendix B: Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Defined
(Sec. 328, House Bill) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Appendix C: Clean Air Coal Program (Sec. 441 House, Sec. 956 Senate) . . . . 246
Appendix D: Price-Anderson Nuclear Liability Coverage (Secs. 601-612) . . . 247
Appendix E: Electric Reliability Standards (Sec. 1211) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Appendix F: Standard Market Design (House Sec. 1235, Senate Sec. 1234) . . 250
Appendix G: Cogeneration and Small Power Production Purchase
and Sale Requirements (Sec. 1253) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Appendix H: Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935
(House Sec. 1263, Senate Sec. 1273) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Appendix I: Continuation of Transmission Security Order (Sec. 1441) . . . . . . 255
Appendix J: Deadline for Decision on Appeals under the Coastal Zone
Management Act (Sec. 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Appendix K: Domestic Offshore Energy Reinvestment (Sec. 2053) . . . . . . . . 257
Omnibus Energy Legislation,
109th Congress: Side-by-Side Assessment
of House and Senate Versions of H.R. 6
Introduction
Since the Arab oil embargo in 1973-1974, Congress has periodically taken up
energy policy legislation with a comprehensive scope — often spurred by the price
of oil and U.S. dependence upon imported oil. The price of crude oil began to rise
in 2003 — exceeding $60/barrel (bbl) in early July 2005 — setting much of the
context for renewed debate over omnibus energy legislation in the 109th Congress.
National and world demand for oil continues to grow. However, domestic oil
production in the United States continues to decline. As a consequence, the gap
between U.S. production and consumption has had to be covered by increased oil
imports. These imports, roughly 6 million barrels per day (mbd) after the Arab oil
embargo, now exceed 10 mbd to satisfy total U.S. oil consumption of nearly 21 mbd.1
Addressing dependence on imported oil raises a number of issues touching on
both demand and consumption of fossil fuels. Chief among these are the production
of additional fossil fuels, development of alternative energy sources, and
conservation and energy efficiency. Energy infrastructure has also been a growing
issue, including the oil refining and distribution sector, and electricity transmission,
reliability, and regulation. Increased use of domestic coal and reassessment of many
issues associated with nuclear energy have drawn attention as well.
Developing a comprehensive approach to energy policy that balances economic,
security, and environmental issues — as well as competing regional priorities in the
United States — is an enormous challenge for policymakers. Keeping a clear eye on
distinguishing between short- and long-term policies is also difficult but important
in keeping expectations realistic for what comprehensive legislation can achieve.
In the 109th Congress, the House approved an omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6) on
April 21, 2005, that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil
and gas leasing, substantially change oversight of electric utilities, increase the use
of alternative motor fuels, provide $8.1 billion in energy tax incentives, extend the
nuclear accident liability system, and authorize numerous energy R&D programs.
The Senate passed its version of H.R. 6 on June 28 without ANWR provisions but
including $14.1 billion in tax incentives and provisions on global climate change.
1
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, at [http://www.eia.doe.
gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/pdf/
tableh1.pdf].
CRS-2
The two versions of the bill contain many provisions from the conference report on
an omnibus energy bill (also numbered H.R. 6) in the 108th Congress that was
blocked by a Senate filibuster.
The House- and Senate-passed bills in the 109th Congress would mandate
increasing levels of ethanol production through 2012 but allow regions to opt out
under certain conditions. Use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as a domestic
gasoline additive would be phased out, but states could authorize continued use and
under the House bill the President could void the ban. Producers of MTBE and
renewable fuels would be granted protection (a “safe harbor”) from product liability
lawsuits under the House bill, while only renewable fuels would be covered in the
Senate bill. MTBE liability protection proved highly contentious in the Senate in the
108th Congress.
The Senate bill includes a “renewable portfolio standard” (RPS) — rejected by
the House Energy and Commerce Committee — requiring utilities to generate at least
10% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. Also, the Senate bill
would establish a credit-based deployment program to encourage technologies to
reduce greenhouse gas intensity and establish programs to deploy technologies in
developing countries. Neither of those provisions is in the House bill.
Provisions are also included in both bills to increase access by energy
developers to federal lands. Several new statutory efficiency standards would be
established for consumer and commercial products and appliances, and other
standards would be set by the Department of Energy (DOE).
Major Provisions
Electricity Regulation. Title XII in the House- and Senate-passed bills
would create an electric reliability organization (ERO) that would enforce mandatory
reliability standards for the bulk-power system. All ERO standards would be
approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Under this title,
the ERO could impose penalties on a user, owner, or operator of the bulk-power
system that violates any FERC-approved reliability standard. This title also
addresses transmission infrastructure issues. The Secretary of Energy would be able
to certify congestion on the transmission lines and issue permits to transmission
owners. Permit holders would be able to petition in U.S. District Court to acquire
rights-of-way for the construction of transmission lines through the exercise of the
right of eminent domain. In the Senate bill, FERC could approve participant funding
for transmission line construction. A provision that would have required FERC to
approve participant funding for new transmission lines was removed in markup by
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Under the House bill, FERC’s Standard Market Design notice of proposed
rulemaking would be remanded. The Senate bill would terminate FERC’s Standard
Market Design notice of proposed rulemaking. Under both Senate- and Housepassed bills, native load service obligations would be clarified, and federal utilities
would be allowed to participate in regional transmission organizations.
CRS-3
Under both bills, the electricity title would repeal the mandatory purchase
requirements under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). The Public
Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA) would be repealed. The Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission and state regulatory bodies would be given access
to utility books and records.
FERC would be required to issue rules to establish an electronic system that
provides information about the availability and price of wholesale electric energy and
transmission services under the House version, and could issue such rules under the
Senate version. Under both versions, for electric rates that the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission finds to be unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory,
the effective date for refunds would begin at the time of the filing of a complaint with
FERC but not later than five months after filing of a complaint. Criminal and civil
penalties would be increased. Under the House version, the Federal Power Act
would be amended to give FERC review authority for transfer of assets valued in
excess of $10 million. The Senate version would also apply to the purchase, lease,
or acquisition of an existing generating facility that has a value in excess of $10
million and is used to generate electricity for FERC jurisdictional interstate wholesale
sales. In addition to the House requirements, the Senate version would require FERC
to determine that the proposed transaction would not result in harmful crosssubsidization with a non-utility associate company.
(For additional discussion on these issues, see CRS Report RL32728, Electric
Utility Regulatory Reform: Issues for the 109th Congress; and CRS Report RL32133,
Federal Merger Review Authority.)
Renewable Fuel Standard and MTBE. The House and Senate versions of
H.R. 6 would amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate the requirement that
reformulated gasoline (RFG) contain 2% oxygen to reduce automotive emissions, a
requirement which prompted the widespread use of MTBE and, to a lesser degree,
ethanol. Instead, the bills would establish a new requirement that an increasing
amount of gasoline contain renewable fuels such as ethanol. The House bill would
require that 3.1 billion gallons of renewable fuel be used in 2005, increasing to 5.0
billion gallons by 2012, and the Senate bill would require 8.0 billion gallons by 2012
(compared with 3.4 billion gallons used in 2004). However, concerns have been
raised that this requirement could significantly increase the pump price for gasoline
in some areas.
Because of concerns over drinking water contamination by MTBE (a major
competitor with ethanol), both bills would ban the use of MTBE in motor vehicle
fuel, except in states that specifically authorize its use, not later than December 31,
2014, under the House version and four years after enactment in the Senate version.
The ban has two possible exceptions. First, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) may allow MTBE in motor fuel up to 0.5 percent by volume, in cases that the
Administrator determines to be appropriate; and second, under the House version, the
President may make a determination, not later than June 30, 2014, that the
restrictions on the use of MTBE shall not take place. The House bill would
authorize $2.0 billion and the Senate bill $1.0 billion to assist the conversion of
merchant MTBE production facilities to the production of other fuel additives.
Further, the bills would preserve the reductions in emissions of toxic substances
CRS-4
achieved by the RFG program (although they use different baselines for determining
required reductions).
One of the most controversial provisions in the House version of H.R. 6 is the
establishment of a “safe harbor” from product liability lawsuits for producers of
MTBE and renewable fuels (such as ethanol). The safe harbor provision would
protect anyone in the product chain, from manufacturers down to retailers, from
liability for cleanup of MTBE and renewable fuels or for personal injury or property
damage based on the product being deemed defective. (That legal approach has been
used in California to require refiners to shoulder liability for MTBE cleanup.) The
safe harbor would be retroactive to September 5, 2003. Prior to that date, five
lawsuits had been filed. After that date, at least 150 suits were filed, on behalf of 210
communities in 15 different states. The Senate bill includes the safe harbor provision
for renewable fuels but not MTBE; the Senate safe harbor would not be retroactive.
(For additional information, see CRS Report RL32865, Renewable Fuels and
MTBE: A Comparison of Selected Legislative Initiatives; CRS Report RL30369, Fuel
Ethanol: Background and Public Policy Issues; and CRS Report RL32787, MTBE
in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking Water Issues.)
Energy Taxes. After the conference report on H.R. 6 in the 108th Congress
was blocked in the Senate, several of the measure’s energy tax provisions —
estimated at $1.3 billion over 10 years — were included in the Working Families Tax
Relief Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-311), enacted on October 4, 2004. About $5 billion in
additional energy tax incentives over 10 years were part of the American Jobs
Creation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-357) enacted on October 22, 2004.
Many of the energy tax incentives in H.R. 6 from the 108th Congress that were
not enacted in 2004 have been repackaged into the H.R. 6 in the 109th Congress, with
significant differences between the House and Senate versions. First, the Senate bill
would provide net tax reductions of $14.1 billion over 11 years compared with $8.1
billion in the House-passed version. Second, most of this difference is accounted for
by tax cuts for the electricity industry, energy efficiency, and renewable and
alternative fuels. The Senate bill provides absolutely and relatively more tax cuts for
energy efficiency and alternative fuels. The differences in tax cuts for alternative
fuels are particularly striking: $12 billion in the Senate bill vs. $0.6 billion in the
House bill. The Senate bill also provides more tax incentives for energy efficiency
investments than the House bill. The House bill provides much larger tax cuts for the
electricity industry, particularly for electricity infrastructure.
Thus, in a relative sense, the House bill is tilted more toward fossil fuel
production, while the Senate bill’s tax cuts are tilted more to the production of
alternative and renewable fuels and energy conservation. However, the absolute
dollar tax cuts for oil, gas, and coal are also somewhat larger in the Senate bill than
in the House bill ($5.8 billion vs. $4.7 billion).
(For more background, see CRS Issue Brief IB10054, Energy Tax Policy.)
Nuclear Energy. Strong incentives for building new commercial nuclear
power plants are included in the Senate version of H.R. 6, and both the House and
CRS-5
Senate bills would reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act nuclear liability system for 20
years and authorize DOE to build an advanced reactor in Idaho.
The strongest nuclear incentive is the Senate bill’s 1.8-cents/kilowatt-hour tax
credit for electricity produced by nuclear reactors. The credit would be available for
up to 6,000 megawatts of new capacity — the equivalent of about five or six new
reactors — for the first eight years of operation. The nuclear production tax credit
was also included in the energy bill conference report in the 108th Congress, and the
Energy Information Administration concluded then that the credit would provide
sufficient incentives for new commercial reactors to be built.2 The Senate bill would
also authorize loan guarantees for new reactors. Neither of those incentives is
included in the House version.
Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act is generally considered to be a
prerequisite for new reactors. Under Price-Anderson, commercial reactor accident
damages are paid through a combination of private-sector insurance and a nuclear
industry self-insurance system. Liability is capped at the maximum coverage
available under the system, currently about $10.7 billion. Even without
reauthorization, existing reactors continue to be covered, but any new ones would
not. Price-Anderson also authorizes the Department of Energy to indemnify its
nuclear contractors. 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.
Both versions of H.R. 6 would provide a 20-year extension of Price-Anderson
to the end of 2025. The nuclear industry contends that the system has worked well
and should be continued, but opponents charge that Price-Anderson’s liability limits
provide an unwarranted subsidy to nuclear power. The House version of the bill
would also require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to assess nuclear
power plant security and require additional security measures.
(For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB88090, Nuclear Energy Policy.)
Renewable Portfolio Standard and Energy Efficiency. The Senate
version of H.R. 6 would require retail electricity suppliers (electric utilities, except
for those in Hawaii and that sold less than 4 billion kwh) to obtain a minimum
percentage of their power from a portfolio of new renewable energy resources. The
minimum renewable energy target, or Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), would
start at 2.5% in 2008, rise in steps of 2.5% every four years, and level off at 10%
from 2020 to 2030. The House version of H.R. 6 does not have an RPS provision.
Eligible resources for the RPS in the Senate bill would include “new renewable
energy” produced from solar, wind, ocean, and geothermal energy, most forms of
biomass, landfill gas, and incremental hydropower. Also, additional energy above
the average generation in the three preceding years from “existing” (already placed
in service) facilities using solar, wind, ocean, biomass, landfill gas, incremental
2
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Analysis of Five Selected
Tax Provision of the Conference Energy Bill of 2003, SR/OIAF/2004-01, February 2004.
CRS-6
hydropower, or incremental geothermal energy would be eligible to satisfy the RPS
target. The base for calculating the target production level would exclude power
from existing hydropower and municipal solid waste generation. Thus, states with
a large amount of existing hydropower or municipal solid waste generation would
have a proportionately lower target for new generation. However, there may be a
debate in conference about whether existing nuclear and hydro generation, or some
portion of it, would be eligible to satisfy the RPS target.
Tradable credits would be created, which could be purchased in place of
alternative power sources. The credits would function like those in the Clean Air Act
emission allowance trading system, which has lowered compliance costs for air
pollution regulations. Electricity suppliers could “carry forward” surplus credits for
up to three years. Double credits would be provided for facilities on Indian land and
triple credits would go to distributed generators under 1 megawatt in size. A cost cap
for the credits is set as the lesser of 1.5 cents/kilowatt-hour (kwh) or 200% of the
average market value of the credits. DOE collections from credit sales and penalties
would fund grants to states to promote renewables.
Both versions of H.R. 6 would legislate new energy efficiency standards for
several consumer and commercial products and appliances. For certain other products
and appliances, DOE would be empowered to set new standards. Also, the bill would
provide increased funding authorizations for the DOE weatherization program and
establish a voluntary program to promote energy efficiency in industry.
(For additional information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10020, Energy Efficiency:
Budget, Oil Conservation and Electricity Conservation Issues, and CRS Issue Brief
IB10041, Renewable Energy: Tax Credit, Budget, and Electricity Production Issues.)
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The congressional debate over whether
to open ANWR to development has continued for more than 40 years. H.R. 6 as
passed by the House would authorize oil and gas exploration, development, and
production in a portion of ANWR, with a 2,000-acre limit on certain production and
support facilities. The Senate version contains no ANWR provisions.
Development advocates argue that ANWR oil would reduce U.S. energy
markets’ exposure to crises in the Middle East; boost North Slope oil production;
lower oil prices; extend the economic life of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System; and
create many jobs in Alaska and elsewhere in the United States. They maintain that
ANWR oil could be developed with minimal environmental harm, and that the
footprint of development could be limited to a total of 2,000 acres.
Opponents of development in ANWR argue that intrusion on this ecosystem
cannot be justified on any terms; that economically recoverable oil found (if any)
would provide little energy security and could be replaced by cost-effective
alternatives, including conservation; and that job claims are overstated. They also
maintain that the footprint of oil development, despite a provision in the measure to
limit certain facilities to 2,000 acres, would still be scattered in many parcels across
the landscape, and would have a greater impact than is implied by any limit on total
acreage. They also argue that past proposals to limit any footprint have not been
CRS-7
worded so as to apply clearly to the extensive Native lands in the Refuge, which
could be developed if the Arctic Refuge were opened.
(For additional information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10136, The Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge: Controversies for the 109th Congress; and CRS Report RL31115,
Legal Issues Related to Proposed Drilling for Oil and Gas in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge and CRS Report RS22143, Oil and Gas Leasing in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): the 2,000-Acre Limit.)
Domestic Energy Production. The Department of the Interior (DOI) has
estimated that roughly a quarter of oil resources and less than one-fifth of gas
resources on Indian lands have been developed. Both versions of H.R. 6 would
encourage production on federal lands through royalty reductions for marginal oil and
gas wells on public lands and the outer continental shelf. Provisions are also
included to increase access to federal lands by energy projects — such as drilling
activities, electric transmission lines, and gas pipelines. In addition, the House bill
would prohibit EPA from regulating hydraulic fracturing to protect drinking water
sources.
(For additional information, see CRS Reports RL32873, Environment and
Energy: Selected Issues in H.R. 6, 109th Congress, and RL32262, Selected Legal and
Policy Issues Related to Coalbed Methane Development.)
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells. The House version of H.R. 6 would authorize $4
billion for FY2006-2010 for hydrogen and fuel cell R&D; the Senate version would
authorize $3.3 billion over the same time frame. The bill would also establish a goal
of producing commercial fuel cell vehicles and developing hydrogen infrastructure
by 2020. Critics of the Administration suggest that the hydrogen program is intended
to forestall any attempts to significantly raise vehicle Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards, and that it relieves the automotive industry of assuming
more initiative in pursuing technological innovations. On the other hand, some
contend that it is appropriate for government to become involved in the development
of technologies that could address national environmental and energy goals but are
too risky to draw private-sector investment.
(For additional information, see CRS Report RS21442, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
R&D: FreedomCAR and the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative; and CRS Report
RL32196, A Hydrogen Economy and Fuel Cells: An Overview.)
Overview of House and Senate Versions
The House and Senate versions of H.R. 6 generally address similar areas of
energy policy, although there are major differences. For example, only the House bill
would open ANWR to oil and gas activities, and only the Senate version includes
extensive provisions explicitly addressing global climate change. Table 1 provides
a brief comparison.
CRS-8
Table 1. Major Provisions of
House and Senate Energy Bills
Provision
House
Senate
Electricity restructuring
Changes regulatory
requirements to emphasize
competitive market
formation.
Changes regulatory
requirements to emphasize
competitive market
formation. Additional
FERC oversight of
mergers and acquisitions
required.
Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR)
Opens ANWR to oil and
gas leasing.
No provision.
MTBE and renewable
fuels liability protection
(“safe harbor”)
Protects MTBE and
ethanol producers from
product liability lawsuits.
Protects ethanol producers
from liability lawsuits.
Global climate change
No specific provisions.
Establishes a credit-based
deployment program to
encourage technologies to
reduce greenhouse gas
intensity and establishes
programs to deploy
technologies in
developing countries.
Equipment and appliance
efficiency standards
Legislates new standards
for 7 products, calls for
DOE standards by
rulemaking for 3 products.
Legislates new standards
for 15 products, calls for
DOE standards by
rulemaking for 4 products.
Nuclear energy
Extends Price-Anderson
coverage for new
commercial reactors and
DOE contracts. Includes
nuclear security provisions.
Provides tax credits and
loan guarantees for new
nuclear power plants.
Extends Price-Anderson
coverage for new
commercial reactors and
DOE contracts.
Renewable energy content
in motor vehicle fuel
Requires motor vehicle
fuel sold in the United
States to contain 5 billion
gallons of ethanol or other
renewable fuel by 2012.
Requires motor vehicle
fuel sold in the United
States to contain 8 billion
gallons of ethanol or other
renewable fuel by 2012.
Renewable Portfolio
Standard
No provision.
Requires electric utilities
to provide minimum
percentages of power
from new renewable
sources.
CRS-9
Organization of Report
The remainder of this report provides a section-by-section summary comparison
of the provisions of H.R. 6 as passed by the House and Senate. The sections are
listed in numerical order as they appear in the House-passed version. Some of the
most controversial sections are discussed in greater detail in a number of appendicies.
Funding authorizations are shown in Tables 2 and 3 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), nuclear security, DOE management;
(name redacted), energy security;
Carl Behrens, nuclear nonproliferation;
(name redacted), Federal Wa ter Pollution Control Act;
(name redacted), ANWR;
Bernard Gelb, gasoline industry;
(name redacted), Native Americanergy,
en general authorizations;
(name redacted), nuclear energy;
(name redacted), federal energy leasing, coal;
Larry Kumins, oil and gas;
(name redacted), taxes;
Jim McCarthy, Clean Air Act, MTBE;
Dan Morgan, science programs;
(name redacted), hydropower;
(name redacted), conservati
on and renewable energy;
(name redacted), underground storage tanks, drinking water;
Brent Yacobucci, motor fuels, vehicles, hydrogen;
Jeff Zinn, Coastal Zone Management Act.
CRS-10
Energy Efficiency
Federal Programs
Provision
House
Senate
Energy and Water Saving
Measures in Congressional
Buildings
Sec. 101. The Architect of the Capitol
would be required to plan and implement
an energy and water conservation
strategy for congressional buildings that
would be consistent with that required of
other federal buildings. An annual report
would be required. Up to $2 million
would be authorized. Section 310 of the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of
1999 called for the Architect of the
Capitol (AOC) to develop an energy
efficiency plan for congressional
buildings.
Sec. 101. The Architect of the Capitol
would be required to plan and implement
an energy and water conservation
strategy for congressional buildings that
would be consistent with that required of
other federal buildings. An annual
report would be required.
Energy Management
Requirements
Sec. 102. The baseline for federal energy
savings would be updated from FY1985
to FY2003 and a new goal of 20%
reduction would be set for FY2015. At
that time, DOE would be directed to
assess progress and set a new goal for
FY2025. Most of the other provisions
for federal agencies in this Subtitle are
administrative measures that would help
agencies achieve the above-described
goal.
Sec. 102. The baseline for federal energy
savings would be updated from FY1985
to FY2004 and a new goal of 20%
reduction would be set for FY2015. By
the end of 2013, DOE would be directed
to assess progress and set a new goal for
FY2015 through FY2024. Standards for
exclusion are set, which empower DOE
to exempt, under certain conditions,
buildings for which serve a national
security function or for which achieving
the target would be impracticable.
Further, agencies are allowed to retain
appropriations for energy expenses that
Comments
Section 202 of Executive Order 13123 uses
FY1985 as the baseline for measuring federal
building energy efficiency improvements and calls
for a 35% reduction in energy use per gross square
foot by FY2010.
CRS-11
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
are saved by the energy efficiency
measures.
Energy Use Measurement and
Accountability
Sec. 103. Federal buildings would be
required to be metered or sub-metered by
late 2010, to help reduce energy costs
and promote energy savings.
Sec. 103. Federal buildings would be
required to be metered or sub-metered by
late 2012, to help reduce energy costs
and promote energy savings. Further, the
Secretary of Energy is required to
prepare guidelines for agency energy
managers to facilitate implementation of
metering.
Procurement of EnergyEfficient Products
Sec. 104. Federal agencies would be
required to purchase products certified as
energy-efficient under the Energy Star
program or energy-efficient products
designated by the Federal Energy
Management Program (FEMP) —
provided the products are found to be
“cost-effective” and “reasonablyavailable.”
Sec. 104. Same provision.
Energy Savings Performance
Contracts
Sec. 105. Would amend the National
Energy Conservation Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 8287) by limiting all federal
agencies combined to a total of 100
energy savings performance contracts
and payments of no more than a total of
$500,000,000. Under such contracts,
energy saving measures are installed at
government facilities by private-sector
firms in return for a share of the resulting
energy cost reductions. The Sunset and
Sec. 105. Would extend authority to enter
into energy savings performance
contracts from 2006 to 2016, and would
consider any energy savings performance
contract entered into under this section
after October 1, 2003, and before the date
of enactment of this Act, as extended by
this amendment.
Currently, Section 403 of Executive Order 13123
directs federal agencies to purchase life-cycle
cost-effective Energy Star products.
CRS-12
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
While there is no current statutory authority,
industry energy efficiency programs have been in
place, such as the former Climate Wise program at
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Reporting Provisions of section 801(c) of
the Act would be repealed October 1,
2006, and any new contract after that
date would be included in the contract
limits.
Voluntary Commitments to
Reduce Industrial Energy
Intensity
Sec. 107. DOE would be authorized to
form voluntary agreements with industry
sectors or companies to reduce energy
use per unit of production by an
unspecified amount.
Sec. 106. DOE would be authorized to
form voluntary agreements with industry
sectors or companies to reduce energy
use per unit of production by 2.5%
annually from 2007 through 2016.
Participants would be eligible for
technical assistance and grants. An
evaluation of energy-savings impacts
would be required by mid-2012.
Advanced Building Efficiency
Testbed
Sec. 108. DOE would be required to
create a program to develop, test, and
demonstrate advanced federal and private
building efficiency technologies.
No similar provision.
Federal Building Performance
Standards
Sec. 109. DOE would be directed to set
revised energy efficiency standards for
new federal buildings at a level 30%
stricter than industry or international
standards — provided the standards
would be “life-cycle cost-effective.”
Sec. 107. Same provision. Federal
agency budget requests would be
required to include an inventory of new
buildings and to indicate whether they
meet the standards.
Increased Use of Recovered
Mineral Component in Federal
Cement and Concrete Projects
No similar provision.
Sec. 108. DOT and other agencies that
regularly procure or provide federal
funds to procure material for cement or
concrete projects would be directed to
fully implement all procurement
Mandatory energy efficiency performance
standards for federal buildings are currently set in
Section 305(a) of P.L. 94-385 and implemented
through 10 CFR Part 435.
CRS-13
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
requirements and incentives that provide
for incorporating recovered mineral
components, such as blast furnace slag
and coal combustion fly ash.
Daylight Savings
Sec. 111. Daylight saving time would
begin one month earlier (in March) and
end one month later (in November). This
is expected to reduce energy used for
night-time electric lighting.
No similar provision.
Enhancing Energy Efficiency in
Management of Federal Lands
Sec. 112. National parks, forests, and
wildlife refuges would be required to
employ energy efficiency measures in
buildings and energy-efficient vehicles
(including biodiesel and hybrid engines)
“to the extent practicable.”
No similar provision.
Under current law (Uniform Time Act, P.L. 89387, §3a), states can choose whether to
participate. However, if a state chooses to
participate, the duration of daylight savings is set
by federal law.
Energy Assistance and State Programs
Provision
House
Senate
Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Sec. 121. Increased funding would be
authorized for the LIHEAP grant
program for FY2005 through FY2007.
Department of Health and Human
Services funding for LIHEAP was
authorized through FY2003 in the
Human Services Authorization Act of
1998. Also, states and their designees
would be allowed to use renewable fuels
No similar provision.
Comments
CRS-14
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Funding for the program was authorized through
FY2003 under 42 U.S.C. 6872.
(including biomass) to carry out the
purposes of this section.
Weatherization Assistance
Sec. 122. Increased funding would be
authorized for the DOE weatherization
grant program for FY2006 through
FY2008.
Sec. 121. Same provision.
State Energy Programs
Sec. 123. New requirements would be
set for state energy conservation goals
and plans, including a 25% energy
efficiency improvement in 2012
compared to 1990. Also, increased
funding would be authorized for FY2006
through FY2008 for DOE state energy
grant programs.
Sec. 122. Same provision.
Energy-Efficient Appliance
Rebate Programs
Sec. 124. DOE would be authorized to
fund rebate programs in eligible states to
support residential end-user purchases of
Energy Star products.
Sec. 123. Same provision.
Energy-Efficient Public
Buildings
Sec. 125. A grant program would be
created for energy-efficient renovation
and construction of local government
buildings that reduce energy use by 30%
relative to standards (new buildings) or
baseline (renovoations).
Sec. 124. Same provision.
Low Income Community
Energy Efficiency Pilot Program
Sec. 126. A pilot energy-efficiency and
renewable energy grant program would
be created for local governments, private
companies, community development
Sec. 125. Same provision. Funding
would be authorized from 2006 through
2010.
CRS-15
Provision
House
Senate
corporations, and Native American
economic development entities. Funding
would be authorized from 2006 through
2008.
Low Income and Rural
Community Energy Efficiency
Pilot Program
Similar to section 126 (above).
Sec. 233. Similar intent as House bill, but
focused on “remote and rural
communities.” The Senate bill would
establish a grant program for “increasing
energy efficiency, siting or upgrading
transmission and distribution lines
serving rural areas; or providing or
modernizing electric generation facilities
that serve rural areas.” Grant applications
for development of renewable energy
sources will be extended “preference.”
Would provide $20 million annually for
FY2006-FY2012.
State Technologies
Advancement Collaborative
No similar provision.
Sec. 126. A cooperative program would
be created that links DOE with the states.
It would be focused on research,
development, demonstration, and
deployment of technologies in which
there is a common federal and state
energy efficiency, renewable energy, and
fossil energy interest.
State Building Energy
Efficiency Codes Incentives
No similar provision.
Sec. 127. A grant program would be
created for states that DOE determines
have achieved a least a 90% rate of
compliance with the most recent model
building energy codes. Funds may be
Comments
CRS-16
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
used to implement building energy codes
and practices that exceed efficiency
requirements of the most recent model
building codes.
Energy-Efficient Products
Provision
House
Senate
Energy Star Program
Sec. 131. DOE and EPA would be given
statutory authority to carry out the
Energy Star program, which identifies
and promotes energy-efficient products
and buildings.
Sec. 131. Same provision. Also, DOE
would be directed to establish new
qualifying energy efficiency levels for
clothes washers and dish washers.
HVAC Maintenance Consumer
Education Program
Sec. 132. DOE would be required to
implement a public education program
for homeowners and small businesses
that explained the energy-saving benefits
of improved maintenance of heating,
ventilating, and air conditioning
equipment. Also, the Small Business
Administration would be directed to
assist small businesses in becoming more
energy-efficient.
Sec. 132. Similar provision.
Public Energy Education
Program
No similar provision.
Sec. 133. DOE would be required to
convene a conference with
representatives from industry, education,
professional societies, trade associations,
and government agencies to design and
Comments
CRS-17
Provision
House
Senate
establish an ongoing national public
education program focused on energy
efficiency and other topics. DOE would
be required to provide guidance and
technical assistance.
Energy Efficiency Public
Information Initiative
No similar provision.
Sec. 134. DOE would be required to
conduct an advertising and public
outreach program about the need to
reduce energy use, the consumer benefits
of reduced use, the relationship to jobs
and economic growth, and cost-effective
consumer measures to reduce energy use.
Energy Conservation Standards
for Additional Products
Sec. 133. DOE would be directed to
issue a rule that determined whether
efficiency standards should be set for
standby mode in battery chargers and
external power supplies. Also, energy
efficiency standards would be set by
statute for exit signs, traffic signals,
torchieres (floor lamps), distribution
transformers (electric utility equipment),
unit heaters (fan-type heaters, usually
portable), and medium base compact
fluorescent lamps (CFLs). Further, DOE
would be directed to issue a rule that
prescribed efficiency standards for
ceiling fans, vending machines,
commercial refrigerators and freezers and
refrigerator-freezers, and residential fans.
Sec. 135. Energy efficiency standards
would be set by statute for all of the
standards set by statute in the House bill
plus dehumidifiers, pre-rinse spray
valves, and mercury vapor (streetlight)
lamp ballasts. Further, DOE would be
directed to issue a rule that prescribed
efficiency standards for ceiling fans,
vending machines, and the standby
power mode of battery chargers and
external power supplies. Also, DOE
would be authorized to set standards by
rule for residential furnace fans.
Comments
CRS-18
Provision
House
Senate
Energy Conservation Standards
for Commercial Equipment
No similar provision.
Sec. 136. Energy efficiency standards
would be set by statute for commercial
air conditioning and heat pumps,
commercial refrigerators and freezers,
commercial clothes dryers, and
commercial ice makers.
Expedited Rulemaking
No similar provision.
Sec. 137. The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act would be amended to
make conforming changes related to the
expedited rulemaking in Section 135.
Energy Labeling
Sec. 134. The Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) would be required to consider
improvements in the effectiveness of
energy labels for consumer products.
Also, DOE or FTC would be directed to
consider prescribing labeling
requirements for many of the products
listed in section 133.
Sec. 138. Similar to House provision.
Requirements would apply to equipment
listed in Senate section 135, except
certain types of dehumidifiers would be
exempt from labeling requirements.
Preemption
Sec. 135. As of January 1, 2006, the
energy efficiency standard for ceiling
fans set out in Section 133 shall
supersede all state and local standards for
ceiling fans.
No similar provision.
State Consumer Product Energy
Efficiency Standards
Sec. 136. If the product efficiency
standards set forth in Section 133 are not
implemented within three years of this
law’s enactment, the federal preemption
of state standards will expire.
Sec. 135. Existing state and local
standards for products listed elsewhere
under Section 135 would not be
preempted until the federal standards go
into effect.
Comments
FTC is currently required by Section 324(a) of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163)
to issue rules for energy efficiency labels on
consumer products (42 U.S.C. 6294).
CRS-19
Provision
House
Senate
Intermittent Escalators
Sec. 137. With certain exceptions, all
new escalators acquired for federal
buildings will operate on an intermittent
(on-demand) basis.
No similar provision.
Energy Efficient Electric and
Natural Gas Utilities Study
No similar provision.
Sec. 139. DOE would be required to
conduct a study of state and regional
policies that promote cost-effective
programs to reduce energy use (including
energy efficiency programs) that are
conducted by utilities subject to state
regulation and non-regulated utilities. A
report to Congress would be required.
Energy Efficiency Pilot Program
No similar provision.
Sec. 140. DOE would be required to
establish a pilot program that provides
financial assistance to at least three, but
not more than seven, states to encourage
energy efficiency and energy use
reductions.
Energy Efficiency Resource
Program
No similar provision.
Sec. 141. State regulatory agencies
would be required to consider
implementing energy efficiency or other
demand reduction programs.
Fuel Efficient Engine
Technology Program for
Aircraft
No similar provision.
Sec. 142. DOE and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) would be required to form a
cooperative agreement for a multi-year
program to develop 10% more fuel
efficient turbine-based propulsion and
Comments
CRS-20
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
power systems for aeronautical and
industrial applications.
Motor Vehicle Tires Supporting
Maximum Fuel Efficiency
No similar provision.
Sec. 143. DOE would be required to
conduct a national tire fuel efficiency
program for passenger cars and light
trucks. The program would include
establishing fuel economy standards for
tires, and the testing, labeling, and
promotion of purchases of energyefficient replacement tires.
Provision
House
Senate
Capacity Building for EnergyEfficient, Affordable Housing
Sec. 141. Activities would be required
that would provide energy-efficient,
affordable housing and other residential
measures under the HUD Demonstration
Act.
No similar provision.
Increase of CDBG Public
Services Cap for Energy
Conservation and Efficiency
Activities
Sec. 142. The amount of community
development block grant (CDBG) public
services funding that could be used for
energy efficiency would be increased to
25%.
No similar provision.
Public Housing
Comments
The current limit is 15% under Sec. 105(a)(8) of
the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974.
CRS-21
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
FHA Mortgage Insurance
Incentives for Energy-Efficient
Housing
Sec. 143. Solar energy equipment can be
eligible for up to 30% of the total amount
of property value that can be covered by
Federal Housing Administration
mortgage insurance.
No similar provision.
The current limit is 20% under Section 203(b)(2)
of the National Housing Act.
Public Housing Capital Fund
Sec. 144. The Public Housing Capital
Fund would be modified to include
certain energy- and water-use efficiency
improvements.
Sec. 161. Same provision.
Under Section 9 of the United States Housing Act,
the Capital Fund is available to public housing
agencies to develop, finance, and modernize
public housing developments and to make
management improvements to these housing
facilities. There is currently no provision for
energy conservation projects that involve waterconserving plumbing fixtures and fittings.
Grants for Energy-Conserving
Improvements for Assisted
Housing
Sec. 145. The Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) would
be directed to provide grants for certain
energy and water efficiency
improvements to multifamily housing
projects.
No similar provision.
Section 2(a)(2) of the National Housing Act, as
amended by Section 251(b)(1) of the National
Energy Conservation Policy Act, empowers HUD
to make grants for energy conservation projects in
public housing, but it has no provision for energyand water-conserving plumbing fixtures and
fittings.
Energy-Efficient Appliances
Sec. 147. Public housing agencies would
be required to purchase cost-effective
Energy Star and FEMP-designated
appliances and products.
Sec. 162. Same provision.
CRS-22
Provision
House
Senate
Energy-Efficient Standards
Sec. 148. The energy efficiency
standards and codes that the federal
government encourages states to use
would be changed from the codes set by
the Council of American Building
Officials to the 2003 International Energy
Conservation Code.
Sec. 163. Same provision.
Energy Strategy for HUD
Sec. 149. The Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development would be required to
implement an energy conservation
strategy to reduce utility expenses
through cost-effective energy-efficient
design and construction of public and
assisted housing.
Sec. 164. Same provision.
Comments
Renewable Energy
General Provisions
Provision
House
Senate
Assessment of Renewable
Energy Resources
Sec. 201. DOE would be required to
report annually on the resource
development potential of solar, wind,
biomass, ocean (tidal, wave, current, and
thermal), geothermal, and hydroelectric
energy resources. DOE would be
required to review available assessments
and undertake new assessments as
necessary, accounting for changes in
market conditions, available
technologies, and other relevant factors.
Sec. 201. Same provision.
Comments
CRS-23
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Renewable Energy Production
Incentive
Sec. 202. Eligibility for the existing
incentive would be extended through
2025 and expanded to include electric
cooperatives and tribal governments.
Qualifying resources would be expanded
to include landfill gas, livestock methane,
and ocean (tidal, wave, current, and
thermal) energy.
Sec. 202. Same provision.
Federal law currently provides a 1.5 cent/kwh
incentive for power produced from wind and
biomass by state and local governments and nonprofit electrical cooperatives (Energy Policy Act,
Sec. 1212 [42 U.S.C. 13317]). The incentive is
funded by appropriations to DOE and was created
to encourage public agencies, which are not
eligible for tax incentives, in a fashion parallel to
the renewable energy production tax credit for
private sector businesses.
Federal Purchase Requirement
Sec. 203. Federal agencies would be
required, to the extent “economically
feasible and technically practicable,” to
purchase power produced from
renewable sources. The collective total
percentage of renewables use, as a share
of total federal electric energy use, would
start at 3% in FY2007, rise to 5% in
FY2010, and then reach 7.5% in 2013
and all subsequent years. Renewable
energy produced at a federal site, on
federal lands, or on Indian lands would
be eligible for double credit toward the
purchase requirement. A report to
Congress would be required every two
years.
Sec. 203. Same provision.
Insular Areas Energy Security
Sec. 204. This section includes
congressional findings that electric power
transmission and distribution lines in
insular areas are not adequate to
withstand hurricane and typhoon
damage, and that an assessment is needed
Sec. 241 through Sec. 245. Would
require the Secretary of the Energy, in
consultation with the Secretary of Interior
to assess and report to Congress on
projects with the greatest potential for
reducing dependence on fossil fuels used
Federal law currently requires comprehensive
energy plans for insular areas that describe the
potential for renewable energy resources.
CRS-24
Provision
House
Senate
of energy production, consumption,
infrastructure, reliance on imported
energy, and indigenous sources of energy
in insular areas. Would require the
Secretary of the Interior, in consultation
with the Secretary of Energy and the
head of government of each insular area,
to update insular area plans by 2007 to
reflect these findings, and to seek to
reduce energy imports by increasing
energy conservation and energy
efficiency and by attempting to maximize
the use of indigenous resources. Annual
appropriations would be authorized that
would, in part, be used for matching
grants (federal share maximum is 75%)
for projects designed to protect electric
power transmission distribution lines in
one or more of the territories of the
United States from damage caused by
hurricanes and typhoons.
to generate electricity, and to promote
distributed energy, in the insular areas.
DOE would be authorized to provide
technical and financial assistance, on a
matching basis with local utilities, for
feasibility studies and the implementation
of those projects the Secretary of Energy
determines are feasible and appropriate
for implementation. No local match
required for assistance.
RFG Opt-In
No comparable provision.
Sec. 227. Would allow Governors of 12
Northeastern states (the Ozone Transport
Region) to petition EPA to require RFG
use in attainment areas in their states.
The Administrator would be required to
do so unless he determines that there is
insufficient capacity to produce RFG, in
which case the commencement date of
the requirement shall be delayed.
Federal Enforcement of State
Standards
No comparable provision.
Sec. 228. At the request of a state, would
allow federal enforcement of state
controls on fuels and fuel additives.
Comments
CRS-25
Provision
House
Senate
Use of Photovoltaic Energy in
Public Buildings
Sec. 205. The General Services
Administration (GSA) would be
authorized to encourage use of solar
photovoltaic energy systems in new and
existing buildings.
No similar provision.
Federal Procurement of
Biobased Products
Sec. 206. This provision amends the
existing requirement that federal agencies
give procurement preference to items
composed of the highest percentage of
biobased products practicable by adding
a specific reference to degradable sixpack rings.
No similar provision, but there are other
provisions on biobased products and
biofuels in House section 939, and Senate
sections 938-944.
Biomass Energy Findings
Sec. 1701(a). This provision would note
that many communities near federal lands
are at risk to wildfire and to insect
infestation and disease.
No similar provision.
Biomass Energy Definitions
Sec. 1701(b). This provision would
provide definitions of biomass and other
terms that would be employed in the
establishment of programs described in
Sections 1701(c) and 1701(d).
Sec. 251. This section is nearly identical
to section 1701(b) except that it would
add definitions of “ eligible operation”
and “green ton.”
Biomass Commercial Utilization
Grant Program
Sec. 1701(c). This provision would
create a grant program to subsidize
biomass purchases for use in an energy
production facility. The purpose would
be to encourage the removal of slash,
brush, pre-commercial thinning material
and other non-merchantable forest
biomass from federal lands and Indian
reservations for biomass energy
production.
Sec. 252. This section is nearly the same
as 1701(c), except that it also gives
priority to facilities in the highest risk
areas.
Comments
7 U.S.C. 8201(c)(1) gives preference to
procurement of items made with the highest
percentage of biobased products. 42 U.S.C.
6914b-1 provides for use of naturally degradable
material in plastic ring carriers to help reduce litter
and to protect fish and wildlife.
CRS-26
Provision
House
Senate
Improved Biomass Utilization
Program
Sec. 1701(d). This provision would
create a grant program to support
proposal development for a project to be
pursued under Section 1701(c). A list of
priority conditions would also be set.
Sec. 253. This section is nearly the same
as 1701(d), except that it adds to the list
of priority conditions efficiency
improvement, cleaner technology
development, and reduction of hazardous
fuel in the highest risk areas.
Biomass Energy Authorizations
Sec. 1701(e). For the grant programs in
both 1701(c) and 1701(d), this provision
would authorize annual appropriations
for FY2006 through FY2016.
Sec. 252 (d). For the proposal
development grant program, this
subsection would authorize annual
appropriations for FY2006 through
FY2010.
Sec. 252 (e). For the production subsidy
grant program, this subsection would
authorize annual appropriations for
FY2006 through FY2010.
Biomass Energy Report
Sec. 1701(f). This provision would
require that the Secretary of Agriculture
and Secretary of Interior jointly submit a
report to Congress on the results of the
two grant programs in Section 1701(c)
and 1701(d). It would require that the
report identify biomass type, estimate the
hauling distance, and project economic
impacts.
Sec. 254. This section would require a
report that describes the interim results of
the programs in sections 252 and 253.
Renewable Energy Security
Sec. 207. For the DOE Weatherization
grant program, Section 207(a) increases
the limit on support for renewable energy
equipment from $2,500 to $3,000 per
dwelling unit. Also, Section 207(d)
creates a consumer rebate for renewable
energy equipment installed in a dwelling
No similar provision.
Comments
CRS-27
Provision
House
Senate
or small business. The maximum rebate
is the lesser of 25% of equipment cost or
$3,000.
Installation of Photovoltaic
System
Sec. 208. Would authorize $20 million
for the Administrator of GSA to proceed
with the Sun Wall Design Project, the
winning entry in a national design
competition sponsored jointly by DOE
and the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, to install a photovoltaic solar
electric system on the headquarters
building of DOE.
No similar provision.
Sugar Cane Ethanol Pilot
Program
Sec. 209. This provision authorizes a
three-year demonstration program for the
production of ethanol in Hawaii to
parallel the existing program for corn to
show that the process can be applicable
to cane sugar and can be replicated on a
larger scale once the sugar cane industry
has located a site and constructed ethanol
production facilities.
Sec. 231. Would establish a program to
study the production of ethanol from
cane sugar, sugarcane, and sugarcane
byproducts. The program would be
limited to projects in Florida, Louisiana,
Texas, and Hawaii. A total of $36
million would be authorized.
Renewable Portfolio Standard
No similar provision.
Sec. 291. This provision would require
electric utilities that have service at the
retail level to obtain a percentage of base
generation from new or existing
renewable energy sources. Specifically,
it would require utilities to obtain 10% of
their generation from renewable energy
by 2020. Utilities would be able to meet
this renewable energy portfolio (RPS)
standard by self generating, purchasing
renewable energy from another utility, or
Comments
CRS-28
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
by purchasing tradable renewable credits
from DOE.
Hydroelectric
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Alternative Conditions and
Fishways
Sec. 231. This provision in H.R. 6 would
allow interested parties to propose
alternative license conditions, and would
require federal agencies to consider
alternatives proposed by license
applicants. It would also require an
agency to accept an applicant’s proposed
alternative if the agency found that the
alternative (1) provides for the adequate
protection and utilization of the federal
reservation, or is no less protective of the
fish resource than the fishway initially
prescribed, and (2) costs less to
implement, and/or will improve operation
of the project for electricity production.
Sec. 281. This provision in H.R. 6 would
allow license applicants and parties to the
license proceeding to propose alternative
license conditions, and would require
federal agencies to consider these
alternatives. It would also require an
agency to accept a proposed alternative if
the agency (1) found that the alternative
provides for the adequate protection and
utilization of the federal reservation, or is
no less protective of the fish resource
than the fishway initially prescribed, and
(2) concurs with the license applicant’s
judgement that the alternative costs less
to implement, and/or will improve
operation of the project for electricity
production.
Under the Federal Power Act (FPA, 16 U.S.C. 797
et. seq.) the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission has primary responsibility for
balancing multiple water uses and evaluating
hydropower relicensing applications. However,
the FPA also creates a role in the licensing process
for federal agencies that are responsible for
managing fisheries or federal reservations (e.g.
national forests, etc.). Specifically, sections 4(e)
and 18 of the FPA give certain federal agencies
the authority to attach conditions to FERC
licenses. For example, federal agencies may
require applicants to build passageways through
which fish can travel around the dam, schedule
periodic water releases for recreation, ensure
minimum flows of water for fish migration,
control water release rates to reduce erosion, or
limit reservoir fluctuations to protect the
reservoir’s shoreline habitat. Once an agency
issues such conditions, FERC must include them
in its license. While these conditions often
generate environmental or recreational benefits,
they may also require construction expenditures
and may increase costs by reducing operational
flexibility.
CRS-29
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
When issuing conditions, H.R. 6 would
require agencies to provide FERC with a
written statement demonstrating that the
relevant Secretary gave “equal
consideration” to the effects of the
conditions on factors such as energy
supply, flood control, navigation, water
supply, and air quality.
Same as House bill.
This equal consideration clause is a topic of
disagreement. Opponents of the provision are
concerned that it would hamper agencies’ ability
to protect the resources under their jurisdiction;
proponents argue that conditioning agencies, like
FERC, should be required to balance competing
water uses.
H.R. 6 would require FERC’s Dispute
Resolution Service to issue non-binding
advisories.
Same as House bill.
FERC’s Dispute Resolution Service is a
facilitative entity that is not currently established
to make recommendations.
Hydroelectric Production
Incentives
Sec. 241. The Secretary of Energy would
make incentive payments to non-federal
owners or operators of hydroelectric
facilities for power that is first produced
within 10 years of the date of enactment
by generating equipment added to
existing facilities. Payments of 1.8 cents
per kilowatt-hour (kWh), up to a total of
$750,000/year, may be made for up to 10
years from the first year after the facility
begins operating.
No similar provision.
Hydroelectric Efficiency
Improvement
Sec. 242. The Secretary of Energy would
make incentive payments to the owners
or operators of hydroelectric facilities
who make capital improvements on
existing facilities that improve efficiency
by at least 3%. Payments would not
exceed 10% of the improvement cost and
would not exceed $750,000 at any single
No similar provision.
CRS-30
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
facility.
Small Hydroelectric Power
Projects
Sec. 243. This provision would amend
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act
of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2078), to change the
date on or before which a dam must be
constructed to qualify as an existing dam,
from April 20, 1977, to March 4, 2003.
No similar provision.
Alaska State jurisdiction over
small hydroelectric projects
No similar provision.
Sec. 282. Under this provision the State
of Alaska could decide not to issue
conditions recommended by certain state
and federal resource agencies under 16
U.S.C. §823c (a)(3)(c).
Flint Creek hydroelectric project
No similar provision.
Sec. 283. This provision would allow the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
to extend, by 3 years, a preliminary
licensing permit for Flint Creek
Hydroelectric Project.
16 U.S.C. §823c allows the State of Alaska to
regulate Alaska’s small hydroelectric projects —
in lieu of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission — if it meets certain conditions. For
example, §(a)(3)(c) requires that the State of
Alaska establish “conditions for the protection,
mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife”
based on recommendations received from certain
federal agencies.
CRS-31
Oil and Gas
Petroleum Reserve and Home Heating Oil
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Permanent Authority to Operate
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Sec. 301. The House bill would
permanently authorize the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve (SPR) program. The
authorization also permits U.S.
participation in emergency activities of
the International Energy Agency (IEA)
without risking violation of antitrust law
and regulation. The bill would encourage
the Secretary of Energy to fill the SPR to
its authorized size of 1 billion barrels
without “incurring excessive cost” or
putting upward price pressure on
petroleum products such as gasoline and
diesel fuel, or home heating oil.
Sec. 301. The language in the Senate bill
is identical in most respects. However,
the Senate bill would require the
Secretary to issue for public comment a
set of procedures for acquiring oil for the
SPR that would take into account the
current future price and supply of crude
and petroleum products, balanced with
national security considerations. The
procedures would also establish a process
for review of requests to delay scheduled
deliveries of oil to the SPR. These
procedures would be required to be in
place 180 days after enactment.
Congress authorized the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve (SPR) in the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA, P.L. 94-163). In 2000,
Congress also authorized establishment of a
Northeast Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR). The
authorities governing the SPR and NHOR are
currently authorized through FY2008 by P.L. 1087.
National Oilheat Research
Alliance
Sec. 302. Extends authorization of the
National Oilheat Research Alliance
(NORA) to 2010. NORA was
established by the Energy Policy Act of
2000 (P.L. 106-469), and assesses a fee
of $.002 per gallon on home heating oil
sold by retail distributors. The proceeds
are dedicated among other purposes to
research on improving the efficiency of
furnaces and boilers.
Sec. 302. Identical to the House
provision.
Site Selection
Sec. 303. Tthe Secretary of Energy
would be required, within one year of the
No comparable provision.
CRS-32
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Producers of offshore leases in the Gulf of Mexico
pay a royalty to the U.S. Treasury based upon
production at their sites. Since 1999, most new
fill of the SPR has been accomplished by the
acceptance of royalty-in-kind (RIK) oil from these
producers in lieu of cash paid to the Treasury. It
is not known whether the Administration plans to
continue RIK fill after current contracts end
during the summer of 2005.
enactment of the legislation, to select
sites — from among those that have been
previously studied — for expansion of
the SPR to its fully authorized volume of
one billion barrels.
Suspension of Strategic
Petroleum Reserve Deliveries
Sec. 304. Would permit accepting
deliveries of royalty-in-kind (RIK) oil to
the SPR only when crude oil prices were
below $40/barrel.
No explicitly comparable provision.
However, see Senate Sec. 301 above for
procedures governing additional fill of
the SPR consistent with oil price and
supply.
Small Business and Agricultural
Producer Energy Emergency
Disaster Loan Program.
No comparable provision.
Sec. 303. Would establish a loan program
to provide relief to qualifying small
businesses that have been jeopardized by
price increases since January 1, 2005 in
the cost of petroleum fuels. Loans may
not exceed $1.5 million unless the
business is a major regional employer or
if the limit is otherwise waived. Loans
would be extended for the purpose of
displacing petroleum consumption
through the use of alternative or
renewable fuels. Would also amend the
Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(a)) to
include agricultural producers under the
program.
CRS-33
Production Incentives
Provision
House
Senate
Liquefied Natural Gas
Sec. 320. This would expand the scope
of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b)
to include importing and exporting
natural gas as well as the construction of
liquefaction and re-gasification facilities.
Building and operating such facilities
would require authorization by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
FERC would be designated as lead
agency for the purpose of coordinating
all applicable federal authorizations, and
for coordinating compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C.4312). FERC would set a
schedule ensuring expeditious
administrative proceedings, and compile
the consolidated record of all state and
federal proceedings.
Sec. 381. This would amend section 3 of
the Natural Gas Act, granting FERC
exclusive authority to approve the siting,
construction, and operation of import or
export facilities. FERC would be
prohibited from denying such a project
because it is for the benefit of the project
sponsor. Nor would it be permitted to
condition authorization on allowing use
by another party, regulation of rates or
other conditions of service, or the
requirement that rates or tariffs be filed
with FERC.
This provision specifies that it would not
affect the rights of states under the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(1 4 U.S.C. 1451), the Clean Water Act
(42 U.S.C. 7401), or the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.1251).
Measures adding customers which have
the effect of degrading service for
existing customers or causing
subsidization of new customers rates by
old customers would be prohibited.
Comments
CRS-34
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Hydraulic Fracturing
Sec. 327. Would amend the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA), Section 1421(d), to
specify that the definition of “underground
injection” excludes the injection of fluids
or propping agents used in hydraulic
fracturing operations related to oil or gas
production activities. Would remove
EPA’s current authority to regulate the
underground injection of fluids used in
hydraulic fracturing, as needed to protect
drinking water.
No similar provision.
The SDWA required EPA to promulgate
regulations for state underground injection control
(UIC) programs that included minimum
requirements for programs to prevent underground
injection that endangers sources of drinking water.
(§1421(b)(2)). Before 1997, EPA had not
considered regulating hydraulic fracturing for oil
and gas development, because it did not view this
well-production process as an activity subject to
regulation under SDWA’s UIC program. The
House provision responds to a 1997 court ruling
that directed EPA to regulate hydraulic fracturing
of coalbed methane (CBM) wells as underground
injection.
(See Appendix A for more information)
Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production Defined
Sec. 328. Would amend Section 502 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) (the definitions
provision) to give a permanent exemption
from CWA stormwater runoff rules for the
construction of exploration and production
facilities by oil and gas companies and the
roads that service those sites.
No similar provision.
Currently under the CWA, the operation of
facilities involved in oil and gas exploration,
production, processing, transmission, or treatment
generally is exempt from stormwater runoff
regulations, but the construction of these facilities
is not. The House amendment would modify the
Act to specifically include construction activities
in the types of oil and gas facilities that are
covered by the law’s statutory exemption from
stormwater rules. (See Appendix B for more
information)
Outer Continental Shelf
Provisions
Sec. 329. For applications to build
deepwater ports, the Secretary of
Transportation could use environmental
impact statements or other studies
prepared by other federal agencies
No similar provision
CRS-35
Provision
House
Senate
instead of conducting separate studies.
Information from state and local
governments and private-sector sources
could also be used.
Appeals Relating to Pipeline
Construction or Offshore
Mineral Development Projects
Sec. 330. Appeals of decisions under the
Coastal Zone Management Act on natural
gas pipelines and offshore energy
projects would be based exclusively on
the record compiled by FERC or the
relevant permitting agency. It would be
the sense of Congress that appeals
relating to natural gas pipeline
construction would be coordinated within
FERC’s established timeframes under
sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act
(15 U.S.C. 717 b 717 (f).
No similar provision.
New Natural Gas Storage
Facilities
No comparable provision.
Sec. 382. Would authorize FERC to
allow provision of gas storage facilities at
market based rates for facilities place in
service after date of enactment.
Process Coordination; Hearings;
Rules of Procedure
No comparable provision.
Sec. 383. Strikes Sec. 15 of the Natural
Gas Act and inserts a new Sec. 15, which
defines Federal authorization as any
required under federal law, including
certificates of convenience and necessity.
FERC would be designated lead agency
for NEPA compliance, preparing a single
environmental review document and
setting a schedule for other Federal
Comments
CRS-36
Provision
House
Senate
authorizations. In situations where an
applicant or a state takes issue with this
process, an appeal to the President would
be provided for. The President would be
required to issue or deny an
authorization within 90 days.
Natural Gas Market Reform
Sec. 332. Would modify the Commodity
Exchange Act (CEA, 7 U.S.C. 13),
banning “knowingly false or knowingly
misleading or knowingly inaccurate
reports.” It also would increase the
penalties for false reporting.
Sec. 384. Penalties. Modifies Natural
Gas Act and Natural Gas Policy Act
penalties for violating FERC Orders.
Would raise the prison term limit from 2
to 5 years, and the fine ceiling from
$500 per violation to $50,000 for each
day the violation takes place. Violations
of emergency orders would be subject to
fines up to $1 million per day.
Civil penalties for violating an order
under the NGA would be subject to a
new $1 million cap.
Sec. 385. Market Manipulation. Would
amend the NGA to prohibit using
deceptive practices to influence price
determination or reporting in
contravention of FERC regulations
protecting consumers.
Sec. 389. Prohibition of Trading and
Serving By Certain Individuals. Would
amend the NGA to facilitate banning of
individuals convicting of violating FERC
orders from being officers of natural gas
companies and prohibiting them from
trading natural gas.
Comments
CRS-37
Provision
House
Senate
Natural Gas Market
Transparency
Sec. 333. Would direct FERC to issue
rules calling for the timely reporting of
natural gas prices and availability and to
evaluate the data for accuracy. The
language specifies that FERC not
impinge on the role of commercial
publishers of natural gas prices.
Sec. 386. Market Transparency.
Anticipates that FERC could establish an
electronic bulletin board for making
market information available to the
public. Would provide for cooperation
with the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission. FERC would be prohibited
from competing with private market
information providers.
Federal State Liquified Natural
Gas Forums.
No comparable provision.
Sec. 388. Within one year of enactment,
the Secretary of Energy — in conjunction
with FERC, the Secretaries of Homeland
Security, Transportation and coastal state
Governors — would be tasked with
convening a series of 3 public forums to
take place in locations where LNG
facilities might be sited.
Oil, Gas, and Mineral Industry
Workers
Sec. 334. Within a year after enactment,
the secretaries of Energy, Labor, and the
Interior must submit a report to Congress
with recommendations on meeting future
labor requirements for the domestic oil,
gas, and mining industries.
No Oil Producing and Exporting
Cartels.
No comparable provision.
Sec. 328. Would make it a violation of
the Sherman Act for foreign states or
their agents, by cartel or cooperative
action, to limit the production or
distribution of fossil fuels, act
collectively to set or maintain prices, or
restrain trade in markets for these fuels.
Comments
CRS-38
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
The doctrine of sovereign immunity from
U.S. jurisprudence would no longer
apply in the event of action being
brought against violators.
Access to Federal Land
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Leasing and Permitting
Processes
Sec. 344. The Secretaries of the Interior
and Agriculture would be required to
sign a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) on the “timely processing” of oil
and gas lease applications, surface use
plans and drilling applications, the
elimination of duplication, and ensuring
consistency in applying lease
stipulations.
No similar provision
Sec. 346. Compliance with Executive
Order No. 13211 (42 U.S.C. 12301 note),
requiring energy impact studies, would
be required before taking action on
regulations having an effect on domestic
energy supply.
No similar provision
The federal oil and gas leasing program is governed
under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended
(30 U.S.C. 181 et. seq.). Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) procedures for an application
for a permit to drill (APD) are contained in 43 CFR
3162.3-1. The APD is posted for 30 days. Within 5
working days after the 30-day period, the BLM
consults with surface-managing agencies whose
consent is also required, then notifies the applicant
of the results. The BLM is also required to process
the application within the 35-day period.
Sec. 355. Congress would urge that no
federal or state permits be issued for oil
and gas drilling in or under the Great
Lakes.
No similar provision
Encouraging Prohibition of
Drilling in the Great Lakes
CRS-39
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Federal Coalbed Methane
Regulation
Sec. 358. States on the list of “affected
states” under section 1339(b) of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13368(b))
would be removed if they took specified
actions within three years after enactment
of H.R. 6 or had previously taken action
under section 1339(b).
Sec. 391. Same provision.
The list of “affected states” established under the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13368 (b))
includes: West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky,
Ohio, Tennessee, Indiana, and Illinois. These
states are on the list as a result of coalbed methane
(CBM) ownership disputes, impediments to
development, lack of a regulatory framework to
encourage CBM development in the state, and no
current extensive development of CBM. A state
may be removed from the list through a
petitioning process initiated by the governor of
that state.
Refining Revitalization
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Short Title
Sec. 371. This subtitle is designated as
the “United States Refinery
Revitalization Act of 2005.”
No provision.
Closure of refineries since 1981 has resulted in the
shuttering of nearly 500,000 barrels per day of
capacity. While the number of operating facilities
has fallen from 324 to 149, the total amount of
capacity has risen, the result of expansion of
existing plants. But the investment climate for
expansion of old plants and construction of new
remains clouded, in part due to regulatory
uncertainty at the federal, state, and local levels.
The findings in the House bill make note of the
planned Yuma, AZ, refinery, which just received
its federal air quality permit after five years under
the current regulatory process.
CRS-40
Provision
House
Senate
Findings
Sec. 372. Based on the finding that fuel
demand exceeds the production capacity
of domestic refineries, it would be in the
national interest to increase capacity to
refine fuels within the United States. The
findings in this section also note that no
new refinery has been built in the country
since 1976, and there has been a
reduction in the number of operating
facilities. It also notes that gasoline
demand is expected to increase 45%
between 2005 and 2025.
No provision.
Purpose
Sec. 373. The Act’s purpose would be to
provide an accelerated review and
approval process for idled refineries, and
to lend legal and technical support to
states needing help to meet such permit
demands.
No provision.
Refinery Revitalization Zones
Sec. 374. Refinery Revitalization Zones
would be designated, and the Secretary of
Energy would identify areas (within 90
days after enactment) that have
experienced mass layoffs in
manufacturing, contain an idle refinery,
and have an unemployment rate that
exceeds the national average by 10%.
No provision.
Comments
CRS-41
Provision
House
Senate
Memorandum of Understanding
Sec. 375. This section calls for a
memorandum of understanding between
the Secretary of Energy and the EPA
Administrator that would designate
appropriate agency officials and staff to
implement the purposes of the Act and
administer any regulations issued
thereunder. State Governors and Indian
Tribe representatives could enter into this
MOU.
No provision.
State Environmental Permitting
Assistance
Sec. 376. Once a qualifying state enters
into the MOU, this section calls on the
Secretary of Energy to delegate agency
staff to provide assistance to the state.
The EPA Administrator would be
similarly charged, and specifically
directed to provide expertise regarding
the laws the agency administers as they
relate to refineries.
No provision.
Coordination and Expeditious
Review of Permitting Process
Sec. 377. DOE would be designated lead
agency. Upon written request of an
applicant, the Department would
coordinate all applicable authorizations
and environmental reviews, including
those at the state and local level. It would
be required to set a prompt and binding
schedule for federal reviews and
authorizations, such that the whole
federal process would be completed
within six months. The Department
would maintain a complete consolidated
No provision.
Comments
CRS-42
Provision
House
Senate
record of the proceedings, and act as the
arbiter in the case of appeals. Decisions
on appeals would be required within 60
days. The Secretary would establish a
60-day pre-application process to help
establish likelihood of approval and
identify potential issues. In its lead
agency role, the Department would
coordinate all federal actions for NEPA
compliance, as well as consolidation of
the impact statement into one document
covering all environmental impacts.
Compliance With All
Environmental Regulations
Required
Sec. 378. This section calls for the
compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations.
No provision.
Definitions
Sec. 379. This section includes
definitions for a number of significant
items, including: (1) Federal
authorizations means those required
under the Clean Air Act, the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, the Safe
Drinking Water Act, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980, the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, the National
Historic Preservation Act, and the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969. (2) An idle refinery is real
property used as a refinery since
December 31, 1979, and not operational
before April 1, 2005. (3) A refinery
No provision.
Comments
CRS-43
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
means any facility designed and operated
to store or ship oil, as well as to operate
as a refinery or a refinery component.
This includes places where fuel blending
took place. (4) A qualifying state is a
state or Indian tribe which has entered
into a MOU with the Secretary of
Energy, and has a refining infrastructure
coordination office.
Coal
Clean Coal Power Initiative
Provision
House
Senate
Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 401. Funding for the Clean Coal
Power Initiative (CCPI) would be
authorized for $200 million for each year
from FY2006-FY2014.
Sec. 401. Funding for CCPI would be
authorized for $200 million for each year
from FY2006-FY2012. Specific
reductions in mercury would be
established.
Project Criteria
Sec. 402. The technical criteria would be
established for coal-based gasification
and other projects. The federal share of
financing for each clean coal project
would not exceed 50%.
Sec. 402. Similar provision, except
slightly different technical criteria by the
year 2020 for coal gasification projects.
Comments
CRS-44
Provision
House
Senate
Report
Sec. 403. A report on the projects’ status
and technical milestones would be
submitted after the first year and every
two years (through 2014) by the
Secretary of Energy to various
congressional committees.
Sec. 403. Same provision, except a report
will be filed every two years through
2012.
Clean Coal Centers of
Excellence
Sec. 404. Would include grants to
universities to establish Centers of
Excellence for energy systems of the
future.
Sec. 404. Same provision
Integrated Coal/Renewable
Energy System
No similar provision.
Sec. 405. Integrated Coal/ Renewable
Energy System. The Secretary would
provide loan guarantees for an integrated
gasification combined cycle facility of at
least 200 MW that would be combined
with renewable energy sources, sequester
carbon dioxide emissions, and be a
source of hydrogen for near-site fuel cell
demonstrations. The federal share would
not exceed 50%.
Provision
House
Senate
Clean Coal Technology Loan
Sec. 411. The Secretary of Energy would
be authorized to provide a $125 million
loan to an experimental clean coal power
plant in Healy, Alaska.
Sec. 406. Similar provision, except the
maximum loan amount would be $80
million.
Comments
Clean Power Projects
Comments
CRS-45
Provision
House
Senate
Coal Gasification
Sec. 412. Loan guarantees would be
authorized for a power plant of at least
400 MW capacity using integrated
combined-cycle (IGCC) technology in a
deregulated market and receiving no
ratepayer subsidy.
Sec. 407. Similar provision except that it
specifies the coal would come from the
western United States, the facility would
be located in a western state and would
not be eligible for loan guarantees.
Petroleum Coke Gasification
Sec. 414. Loan guarantees would be
available for at least five petro-coke
gasification polygeneration projects,
involving co-production of electricity and
fuels.
No similar provision
Electron Scrubbing
Demonstration
Sec. 416. The Secretary of Energy would
be directed to use $5 million of
appropriated funds to begin a project
managed by the DOE Chicago
Operations Office to demonstrate highenergy electron scrubbing technology for
high-sulfur coal emissions.
No similar provision
Comments
Coal and Related Programs
Provision
House
Senate
Clean Air Coal Program/ Coal
and Related Technologies
Sec. 441. This section would amend the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 with the
addition of a clean air coal program to
promote increased use of coal,
acceptance of new clean coal
technologies, and advance deployment of
Sec. 956. Similar provision.
Comments
CRS-46
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
pollution control equipment to meet the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7402 et seq.)
(See Appendix C for more
information.)
Indian Energy
Provision
House
Senate
Short Title
Sec. 501. This title would be cited as the
“Indian Tribal Energy Development and
Self-Determination Act of 2005.”
Sec. 501. Similar provision.
Office of Indian Energy Policy
and Programs
Sec. 502. Title II of the Department of
Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C.
7131 et. seq.) would be amended to
create the Office of Indian Energy Policy
and Programs at the Department of
Energy.
Sec. 502. Similar provision.
Indian Energy
Sec. 503. Title 26 the Energy Policy Act
of 1992 (25 U.S.C. 3501) would be
replaced by this section, which outlines
procedures whereby Indian tribes would
be able to develop and manage the
energy resources located on, and rightsof-way through, tribal land. Within a
year of enactment of the bill, the
Department of the Interior (DOI) would
issue regulations on the requirements for
approval of tribal energy resource
Sec. 503. Similar provision.
Comments
Assistance for tribal energy development would
be provided through DOI by grants and lowinterest loans and through DOE by grants and loan
guarantees. Federal agencies could give
preference to Indian energy when purchasing
energy products and byproducts. DOI would be
required to undertake a review and make
recommendations regarding tribal opportunities
under the Indian Mineral Development Act of
1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101 et. seq.). The Bonneville
Power Administration and Western Area Power
CRS-47
Provision
House
Senate
agreements. Under their own tribal
energy resource agreements as approved
by DOI, Indian tribes would be able to
enter into leases or business agreements
for energy development and grant rightsof-way over tribal land for pipelines or
electric lines.
Comments
Administration would be authorized to assist in
developing distribution systems that provide
power to Indian tribes using the federal
transmission system.
Consultation with Indian Tribes
Sec. 504. The Secretaries of Energy and
of the Interior would be required to
consult with Indian tribes in carrying out
this title.
Sec. 506. Similar provision.
Four Corners Transmission Line
Project
Sec. 505. The Dine Power Authority, an
enterprise of the Navajo nation, would be
eligible to receive grants and other
assistance to develop a transmission line
from the Four Corners Area to southern
Nevada, including related generation
facilities.
Sec. 504. Similar provision.
Energy Efficiency in Federally
Assisted Housing.
No provision.
Sec. 505. Would amend the Native
American Housing and SelfDetermination Act of 1996 to include as
a goal “greater energy efficiency.”
CRS-48
Nuclear Matters
Price-Anderson Act Amendments
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Short Title
Sec. 601. “Price-Anderson Amendments
Act of 2005.”
Sec. 601. Same.
Extension of Indemnification
Authority
Sec. 602. Price-Anderson liability
coverage for commercial reactors, DOE
contractors, and non-profit educational
institutions would be extended through
December 31, 2025.
Sec. 602. Same.
Maximum Assessment
Sec. 603. The total retrospective
premium for each reactor would be set at
the current level of $95.8 million and the
limit on per-reactor annual payments
raised to $15 million. Both levels would
be adjusted for inflation every five years,
beginning August 20, 2003.
Sec. 603. Same.
Department of Energy Liability
Limit
Sec. 604. The liability limit for DOE
contractors would be set at $10 billion
per incident, to be adjusted for inflation
every five years under Sec. 607.
Sec. 604. Same.
The Price-Anderson Act, which addresses liability
for damages to the general public from nuclear
incidents, would be extended through 2025 by
both bills. The Price-Anderson liability system
was up for reauthorization on August 1, 2002, and
was extended for commercial nuclear reactors
through December 31, 2003, by the FY2003
consolidated appropriations resolution (P.L. 1087). Even without further extension, existing
reactors will continue to operate under the current
Price-Anderson liability system, but any new
reactors would not be covered. Price-Anderson
coverage for DOE nuclear contractors was
extended through December 31, 2004, by the
National Defense Authorization Act for FY2003
(P.L. 107-314). A further two-year extension for
DOE contractors was approved by Congress on
October 9, 2004, as part of the Ronald W. Reagan
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005 (P.L. 108-375).
(See Appendix D for more information.)
Incidents Outside the United
States
Sec. 605. The liability limit and
maximum indemnification for DOE
contractors for nuclear incidents outside
Sec. 605. Same.
CRS-49
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
the United States would be raised from
$100 million to $500 million.
Reports
Sec. 606. NRC and DOE would have to
report to Congress by the end of 2021 on
the need for further Price-Anderson
extensions and modifications.
Sec. 606. Same.
Inflation Adjustment
Sec. 607. The liability limit for DOE
nuclear contractors would be adjusted for
inflation every five years after July 1,
2003.
Sec. 607. Same.
Treatment of Modular Reactors
Sec. 608. For the purpose of applying the
limits on retrospective premiums after a
nuclear incident, a nuclear plant
consisting of multiple small reactors
(100-300 megawatts per reactor, up to a
total of 1,300 megawatts at the plant site)
would be considered a single reactor.
Sec. 608. Same.
Applicability
Sec. 609. None of the increased liability
limits would apply to nuclear incidents
taking place before the amendments are
enacted.
Sec. 609. Same.
Prohibition on U.S. Liability for
Certain Foreign Incidents
Sec. 610. Price-Anderson
indemnification would be prohibited for
contracts related to nuclear facilities in
countries found to sponsor terrorism.
The prohibition would not apply to
missions necessary for nuclear safety or
nonproliferation.
No provision.
For example, a power plant with six 120megawatt modular reactors would be liable for
retrospective premiums of up to $95.8 million,
rather than $574.8 million.
CRS-50
Provision
House
Senate
Civil Penalties
Sec. 611. For future contracts, the bill
would eliminate the civil penalty
exemption for nuclear safety violations
by the seven non-profit contractors listed
in current law. DOE’s authority to
automatically remit penalties imposed on
all non-profit educational institutions
serving as contractors would also be
repealed. However, the bill would limit
the civil penalties against a non-profit
contractor to the amount of management
fees received under that contract within a
one-year period.
Sec. 610. Substantially the same.
Financial Accountability
Sec. 612. The federal government could
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.
No provision.
Comments
General Nuclear Matters
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Commercial Reactor License
Period
Sec. 621. The initial 40-year period for a
commercial nuclear reactor license would
begin when NRC authorized the reactor
No provision.
Currently, under Atomic Energy Act Section 185
b. (added by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, P.L.
102-486), the 40-year initial license period may
CRS-51
Provision
House
Senate
to commence operation after construction
had been completed.
Comments
begin when a “combined construction and
operating license” is issued several years before
the reactor is to start operating. Before Section
185 was added in 1992, reactor operating licenses
had been issued only after construction was
complete, but any future licenses are expected to
use the combined license option.
NRC Training and Fellowship
Program
Sec. 622. Funding of $1 million per year
would be authorized from FY2005FY2009 for NRC to conduct a training
and fellowship program to develop
critical nuclear safety regulatory skills.
No provision.
Cost Recovery From
Government Agencies
Sec. 623. NRC would be authorized to
charge cost-based fees for all services
rendered to other federal agencies.
No provision.
Elimination of Pension Offset
for Key NRC Personnel
Sec. 624. When NRC has a critical need
for the skills of a retired employee, NRC
could hire the retiree as a contractor and
exempt him or her from the annuity
reductions that would otherwise apply.
No provision.
Antitrust Review Suspension
Sec. 625. NRC would no longer have to
submit nuclear reactor license
applications to the Attorney General for
antitrust reviews, as currently required by
Atomic Energy Act Section 105 c.
No provision.
Such authority is limited under current law
(Atomic Energy Act, Section 161 w.).
CRS-52
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Decommissioning Fund
Protection
Sec. 626. NRC would be explicitly
authorized to issue regulations ensuring
that funds collected to decommission
nuclear power plants would not be used
for other purposes.
No provision.
This provision is particularly aimed at cases in
which an original nuclear power plant owner has
sold the plant but retained control over
decommissioning funds collected before the
ownership transfer.
Limitation on DOE Legal Fee
Reimbursement
Sec. 627. Except as required by existing
contracts, DOE would be prohibited from
reimbursing its contractors for legal
expenses incurred in defending against
“whistleblower” complaints that are
ultimately upheld.
No provision.
Feasibility Study for
Commercial Reactors at DOE
Sites
Sec. 629. The Secretary of Energy would
be required to submit a study to Congress
on the feasibility of developing
commercial nuclear power plants at
existing DOE sites.
No provision.
Government Uranium Sales
Sec. 630. With certain exceptions, DOE
uranium sales would be restricted to 3
million pounds per year from FY2005FY2009, 5 million pounds per year in
FY2010-FY2011, 7 million pounds per
year in FY2012, and 10 million pounds
per year thereafter. DOE must report to
Congress within three years on the
impact of such sales on the domestic
uranium industry.
No provision.
CRS-53
Provision
House
Senate
Uranium Mining Research and
Development
Sec. 631. Funding of $10 million per
year would be authorized during
FY2006-FY2008 for a cost-shared
research and development program by
DOE and domestic uranium producers on
in-situ leaching mining technologies and
related environmental restoration
technologies, except that “no activities
funded under this section may be carried
out in the State of New Mexico.”
No provision.
Whistleblower Protection
Sec. 632. Existing whistleblower
protections for employees of nuclear
power plants and other NRC licensees
and employees of DOE contractors
would be extended to employees of NRC
contractors. An employee whose
whistleblower retaliation complaint did
not receive a final decision by the
Secretary of Labor within 540 days could
take the case to federal court.
Sec. 625. Whistleblower protections
would be extended to employees of DOE
and all DOE contractors and
subcontractors. An employee could take
a whistleblower complaint to federal
court if the Secretary of Labor had not
made a final decision within 180 days.
Uranium Exports for Medical
Isotope Production
Sec. 633. Highly enriched uranium
(HEU) could be exported to Canada,
Belgium, France, Germany, and the
Netherlands for production of medical
isotopes in nuclear reactors. Those
countries would be exempt from existing
requirements (under Section 134 of the
Atomic Energy Act) that they agree to
switch to low-enriched uranium (LEU) as
soon as possible and that LEU fuel for
their reactors be under active
Sec. 621. NAS would study the
effectiveness of the current HEU export
restrictions, the progress that medical
isotope producers are making in
converting to LEU, whether the supply of
medical isotopes could be affected by the
HEU restrictions, and other aspects of the
issue.
Comments
The current HEU export restrictions are intended
to spur foreign cooperation with U.S. efforts to
convert all HEU reactors to LEU, but supporters
of the exemption contend that the restrictions
could disrupt the supply of medical isotopes
produced in foreign HEU reactors.
CRS-54
Provision
House
Senate
development. Instead, those countries
would have to agree to convert to suitable
LEU fuel when it became available.
NRC would have to review current
security requirements for HEU used for
medical isotope production and impose
additional requirements if necessary.
The National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) would study the potential
availability and cost of medical isotopes
produced in LEU reactors; that study
would be used by DOE to help determine
whether U.S. medical isotope demand
could be reliably and economically met
with production facilities that do not use
HEU. If the Secretary of Energy certifies
that such demand can be met, the export
exemption in the House bill would
terminate.
Fernald Byproduct Material
Sec. 634. DOE-managed material in the
concrete silos at the Fernald (OH)
uranium processing facility would be
considered byproduct material (as
defined by section 11 e.(2) of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2014(e)(2)). DOE would dispose of the
material in an NRC- or state-regulated
facility.
No provision.
Comments
CRS-55
Provision
House
Senate
Safe Disposal of Greater-thanClass-C Radioactive Waste
Sec. 635. DOE would designate an office
with the responsibility for developing a
comprehensive plan for permanent
disposal of all low-level radioactive
waste with concentrations of
radionuclides that exceed the limits
established by the NRC for Class C
radioactive waste. The plan would
include developing a new facility or use
of an existing facility for disposal.
Sec. 622. Similar to House provision,
with the additional requirement that
within 180 days after enactment DOE
would give Congress a plan for continued
recovery and storage of radioactive
sealed sources that pose a security threat.
Prohibition on Nuclear Exports
to Terrorism Sponsors
Sec. 636. Exports of nuclear materials,
equipment, and sensitive technology
would be prohibited to any country
identified by the Secretary of State as a
sponsor of terrorism. The President could
waive the export restriction under certain
conditions.
Sec. 623. Same.
National Uranium Stockpile
Sec. 638. The Secretary of Energy would
be authorized to create a national lowenriched uranium stockpile.
No provision.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Meetings
Sec. 639. Whenever a quorum of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission gathers
to discuss official business, other than at
formal Commission meetings, the
discussions would have to be recorded
and the public notified within 15 days. A
transcript of the recording would be
available to the public upon request
except for information that is exempted
or prohibited from disclosure by law.
No provision.
Comments
This provision is intended to block
implementation of a 1994 agreement under which
North Korea was to receive a U.S.-designed
nuclear power plant in return for abandoning its
nuclear weapons program. The agreement has
been suspended in light of North Korea’s
continuing weapons activities.
CRS-56
Provision
House
Senate
Employee Benefits
Sec. 640. Subject to the availability of
funds, workers at DOE’s uranium
enrichment plants at Portsmouth, Ohio,
and Paducah, Kentucky, who were
eligible for certain pension and health
care benefits on April 1, 2005, shall
continue such eligibility.
No provision.
Decommissioning Pilot Program
No provision.
Sec. 624. DOE would be required to
establish a program to decommission and
decontaminate the site of the Southwest
Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor
(SEFOR) in Arkansas. Funding of $16
million would be authorized.
Comments
Advanced Reactor Project
Provision
House
Senate
Advanced Reactor Project
Sec. 651. DOE would be authorized to
develop, design, construct, and operate
an advanced nuclear reactor to produce
hydrogen and electricity, called the
Advanced Reactor Hydrogen
Cogeneration Project. The project would
be managed by the DOE Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science, and
Technology, and the reactor would be
located at the Idaho National Laboratory.
The project could be combined with
DOE’s existing Generation IV Nuclear
Secs. 631-635. Similar to House
provision. The project would be called
the Next Generation Nuclear Plant
Project and could produce electricity,
hydrogen, or both. Program plans for
the project would be reviewed by DOE’s
Nuclear Energy Research Advisory
Committee. DOE would be required by
the end of FY2011 to select the
technology to be used for hightemperature hydrogen production or
notify Congress of an alternative date. A
Comments
CRS-57
Provision
House
Senate
Energy Systems Initiative, which focuses
on development of advanced nuclear
power technology. Among other
requirements, the project should begin
producing hydrogen or electricity by
2011 unless the Secretary of Energy finds
that goal infeasible. The reactor would
be licensed and regulated by NRC. Five
projects to demonstrate hydrogen
production at existing nuclear power
plants would also be authorized. Funding
for the program would be authorized at
$1.3 billion through FY2015.
design competition would then by held,
and the target date to complete
construction would be the end of
FY2021. Funding of $1.25 billion would
be authorized through FY2015, plus such
sums as necessary from FY2016 through
FY2021.
Sec. 652. “Advanced nuclear reactor
technologies” and other terms are
defined.
No provision.
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Nuclear Facility Threats
Sec. 661. In consultation with NRC and
other appropriate agencies, the President
would be required to identify types of
security threats at nuclear facilities. The
President would have to issue reports on
the identified threats and on actions taken
or to be taken to address the threats.
NRC would be authorized to revise its
regulations based on the President’s
No provision.
NRC has been reviewing security requirements at
nuclear facilities since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The “design basis threat” that nuclear plant
security forces must defend against has been
revised, and all reactor sites must now conduct
force-on-force security exercises every three
years. NRC contends that legislation in this area
is therefore unnecessary, but others contend that
NRC’s security requirements are inadequate.
Definitions
Comments
Nuclear Security
CRS-58
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
threat-identification report. NRC would
be required to conduct periodic force-onforce exercises to test nuclear facility
security. NRC would be authorized to
issue regulations to protect information
about nuclear facility security, and would
be required to assign a security
coordinator to each NRC region.
Fingerprinting for Criminal
Background Checks
Sec. 662. The existing requirement that
individuals be fingerprinted for criminal
background checks before receiving
unescorted access to nuclear power plants
(Atomic Energy Act, Section 149) would
be extended to individuals with
unescorted access to any radioactive
material or property that could pose a
health or security threat. Other biometric
methods could be used instead of
fingerprinting.
No provision.
Use of Firearms by Nuclear
Licensees
Sec. 663. NRC would be authorized to
allow the use of firearms by security
personnel at nuclear power plants and
other facilities licensed or regulated by
NRC.
No provision.
Unauthorized Introduction of
Dangerous Weapons
Sec. 664. Existing NRC controls on the
entry of dangerous weapons or materials
into Commission facilities (Atomic
Energy Act, Section 229a) would be
No provision.
Federal law currently authorizes NRC employees
and contractors to use firearms, but not employees
or contractors of nuclear licensees (Atomic
Energy Act, Section 161 k.). This provision would
counter some state laws that preclude private
guard forces from utilizing some weapons.
CRS-59
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
extended to commercial nuclear power
plants and other NRC-regulated facilities.
Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities or
Fuel
Sec. 665. Maximum penalties for
sabotage of licensed nuclear facilities or
materials (Atomic Energy Act, Section
236 a.) would be increased from $10,000
and 10 years in prison to $1 million and
life imprisonment without parole. The
language would clarify that the penalties
could apply to facilities “certified” as
well as “licensed” by NRC, and also to
sabotage of facilities under construction.
No provision.
Secure Transfer of Nuclear
Materials
Sec. 666. Nuclear materials transferred
or received in the United States pursuant
to an import or export license would have
to be accompanied by a detailed
manifest. Every worker involved in such
shipments would have to undergo a
federal security background check.
No provision.
Department of Homeland
Security Consultation
Sec. 667. Before issuing a license for a
nuclear power plant, NRC would have to
consult with the Department of
Homeland Security about the
vulnerability of the proposed plant
location to terrorist attack.
No provision.
Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 668. Appropriation of such sums as
necessary to carry out this subtitle would
be authorized. A statutory requirement
that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
No provision.
The current fee requirement, imposed by the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 2214), is set to expire September 20, 2005.
CRS-60
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
recover 90% of its costs (minus certain
exceptions) through licensee fees would
be made permanent. NRC’s costs in
regulating residual defense radioactive
waste under Section 3116 of the Ronald
W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005
(50 U.S.C. 2601 note) would be excluded
from costs subject to the 90% cost
recovery requirement.
Vehicles and Fuels
Existing Programs
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Use of Alternative Fuels by
Dual-Fueled Vehicles
Sec. 701. Section 400AA of EPCA would
be amended to require that all federal
agencies operate dual-fueled vehicles on
alternative fuels or petition the Secretary
of Energy for a waiver from the
requirement.
Sec. 701. Similar provision.
The sections of this subtitle refer to alternative
fuel and vehicle purchase requirements under the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)
(P.L. 94-163) and the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(EPAct, P.L. 102-486). Under current law,
agencies are not required to file a petition to be
exempted from the requirement.
Fuel Use Credits
No comparable provision.
Sec. 702. Would allow agencies to
consume alternative fuels in lieu of
making required alternative fuel vehicle
purchases under the Energy Policy Act of
1992.
Under current law, for covered fleets a set
percentage (depending on the type of fleet) of new
light-duty vehicle purchases must be alternative
fuel vehicles. For every 450 gallons of biodiesel
(but not other alternative fuels) consumed by a
CRS-61
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
covered fleet, that fleet may purchase one fewer
alternative fuel vehicle.
Incremental Cost Allocation
Sec. 704. Section 303(c) of EPAct allows
federal agencies to allocate the
incremental cost of required alternativefuel vehicles across the whole vehicle
fleet. H.R. 6 would require agencies to
do so.
Sec. 703. Identical provision.
Alternative Compliance and
Flexibility
No comparable provision.
Sec. 704. Would require the Secretary of
Energy to allocate vehicle purchase
credits for: the acquisition of hybrid
vehicles; the installation of alternative
fuel refueling infrastructure; or other
actions that will reduce petroleum
consumption.
Lease Condensates
Sec. 705. Would amend the definition of
alternative fuel to include lease
condensate (liquids recovered from
natural gas separation) and fuels derived
from lease condensate. Fleets could
generate one vehicle purchase credit for
the use of a certain volume (to be
determined by the Secretary of Energy)
of lease condensate fuel in medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles. This provision is
similar to the existing credit structure for
the use of biodiesel.
No comparable provision.
Review of Energy Policy Act of
1992 Programs
Sec. 706. The Secretary of Energy would
be required to conduct a study on the
Sec. 1308. Similar provision.
CRS-62
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
effectiveness of the alternative fuel
vehicle programs under EPAct.
Specifically, the Secretary would be
required to assess the effects on vehicle
technology, availability, and cost.
Report Concerning Compliance
with Alternative Fuel Vehicle
Purchasing Requirements
Sec. 707. Would extend through 2020
the requirement that each federal agency
report annually (currently required
through 2012) to Congress on its
compliance with EPAct vehicle purchase
requirements.
Sec. 705. Identical provision.
Procurement of Alternative
Fueled Passenger Automobiles
No comparable provision.
Sec. 723. Federal fleets not otherwise
covered by the EPAct alternative fuel
vehicle requirements would be mandated
to purchase solely alternative fuel
passenger automobiles unless there is
insufficient supply of alternative fuel.
Procurement of Hybrid Light
Duty Trucks
No comparable provision.
Sec. 724. Federal agencies with fleets
not otherwise covered by the EPAct
alternative fuel vehicle requirements
would be mandated to purchase solely
hybrid light-duty trucks, unless: those
vehicles cannot meet the fleets’
requirements for capabilities; the vehicles
are not commercially available; or the
incremental cost of the hybrid vehicle is
significant. This section would exclude
the Department of Defense from the
requirement.
In general, the above EPAct requirements apply to
fleets of 50 vehicles or more, of which at least 20
operate primarily in metropolitan areas.
CRS-63
Provision
House
Senate
Definitions
No comparable provision.
Sec. 725. Alternative fueled vehicle and
other terms would be defined.
Comments
Hybrid Vehicles, Advanced Vehicles, and Fuel Cell Buses
Provision
House
Senate
Hybrid Vehicles
Sec. 711. Would require the Secretary of
Energy to accelerate research on
technologies for hybrid vehicles. No
funding authorization is included.
Sec. 721. Similar provision, except that
$50 million annually would be
authorized for FY2006 through FY2008.
Hybrid Retrofit and Electric
Conversion Program
Sec. 712. The Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
would be required to establish a grant
program for the installation of
technologies to retrofit existing
combustion engines with electric or
hybrid systems. Retrofitted vehicles
must achieve federal Low Emission
Vehicle standards. Would authorize a
total of $100 million between FY2005
and FY2007 for the program.
No comparable provision.
Efficient Hybrid and Advanced
Diesel Vehicles
Sec. 713. The EPA Administrator would
be required to establish a program to
encourage the domestic production and
sale of efficient hybrid and advanced
diesel vehicles. The program must
include grants to domestic vehicle
manufacturers to encourage production
No comparable provision.
Comments
CRS-64
Provision
House
Senate
and provide consumer purchase
incentives. A total of $3 billion is
authorized between FY2006 and
FY2015.
Advanced Vehicles
Fuel Cell Transit Bus
Demonstration
Secs. 721-724. The Secretary of Energy
would be authorized to provide grants to
state governments, local governments,
and metropolitan transit authorities for
the purchase of alternative fuel, hybrid,
fuel cell, and ultra-low sulfur diesel
vehicles (defined in Sec. 721) and the
infrastructure to support them. The
program would be administered through
the Clean Cities Program.
No comparable provision.
Sec. 722. Grants would be capped at $20
million per applicant. Between 20% and
25% of all grant funds would be used for
ultra-low sulfur diesel vehicles.
No comparable provision.
Sec. 723. The Secretary would be
required to submit reports to Congress
identifying grant recipients and
evaluating the program’s effectiveness.
No comparable provision.
Sec. 724. $200 million total would be
authorized for the grant program.
No comparable provision.
Sec. 731. The Secretary of Energy would
be required to establish a program to
demonstrate up to 25 fuel cell transit
buses in various localities. $10 million
No comparable provision.
Comments
CRS-65
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
annually would be authorized for
FY2006 through FY2010.
Joint Flexible Fuel/Hybrid
Vehicle Commercialization
Initiative
No comparable provision.
Sec. 706. The Secretary of Energy would
be required to establish a grant program
for applied research on flexible fuel
hybrid vehicles. A total of $40 million
would be authorized between FY2005
and FY2008.
Provision
House
Senate
Definitions
Secs. 741-744. Definitions of “alternative
fuel school bus” and other terms are
provided.
No comparable provision.
Program for Replacement of
Certain School Buses With
Clean School Buses
Sec. 742. A pilot program administered
by the Environmental Protection Agency
would be established to provide grants to
local governments and contractors that
provide school bus service for public
school systems. Grants would be
provided to aid in the purchase of
alternative fuel and advanced diesel
buses, and the infrastructure necessary to
support them. A total of $200 million
would be authorized for FY2005 through
FY2007, and a maximum of 30% of the
No comparable provision.
Clean School Buses
Comments
CRS-66
Provision
House
Senate
grant funds could be used to purchase
advanced diesel buses.
Diesel Retrofit Program
Sec. 743. A pilot program would also be
established to provide grants for the
development and application of retrofit
technologies for diesel school buses. A
total of $100 million would be authorized
for FY2005 through FY2007.
No comparable provision.
Fuel Cell School Buses
Sec. 744. In addition, a pilot program
would be established for the development
and demonstration of fuel cell school
buses. A total of $25 million would be
authorized for FY2005 through FY2007.
No comparable provision.
Diesel Truck Retrofit and Fleet
Modernization Program
Sec. 743A. The EPA Administrator
would be required to establish a program
to provide grants (administered by state
or local governments) to modernize
cargo truck operations. Grants would be
used to retrofit pre-1999 vehicles with
advanced emissions control devices. A
total of $100 million would be authorized
between FY2005 and FY2007.
Secs. 751-757. The EPA Administrator
would be required to establish a program
to provide grants and loans for diesel
engine retrofits. Would require EPA to
provide grants and loans for retrofits of
various types of engines including buses,
heavy-duty trucks, locomotives, and
marine engines. Would require EPA to
support grant and loan programs
administered by the states. Would
require a report to Congress evaluating
the implementation of the programs.
$200 million would be authorized
annually for FY2006 through FY2010.
Comments
CRS-67
Miscellaneous
Provision
House
Senate
Railroad Efficiency
Sec. 751. A public-private research
partnership would be established for the
development and demonstration of
locomotive engines that increase fuel
economy, reduce emissions, and lower
costs. A total of $110 million would be
authorized for FY2006 through FY2008.
Sec. 731. Similar provision.
Mobile Emission Reductions
Trading
Sec. 752. Within 180 days of enactment,
the EPA Administrator would be required
to submit a report to Congress on EPA’s
experience with the trading of mobile
source emission reduction credits to
stationary sources to meet emission offset
requirements within Clean Air Act
nonattainment areas.
No provision.
Aviation Fuel Conservation and
Emissions
Sec. 753. This section would require the
Federal Aviation Administration and
EPA to initiate a joint study of the impact
of aircraft emissions on air quality in
Clean Air Act nonattainment areas, ways
to promote fuel conservation measures
and reduce emissions, and opportunities
to reduce air traffic inefficiencies that
increase fuel burn and emissions within
60 days of the date of enactment, and to
report the results to Congress within one
year of initiating the study.
No provision.
Comments
CRS-68
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Diesel Fueled Vehicles
Sec. 754. The Secretary of Energy would
be required to accelerate research on
emissions control technologies for diesel
motor vehicles. The objective of the
research would be to enable diesel
technology to meet, not later than 2010:
Tier 2 light-duty vehicle emission
standards; and model year 2007 heavyduty vehicles. No new funding would
be authorized.
Sec. 722. Similar provision, except that
$75 million would be authorized
annually for FY2006 through FY2008.
The Tier 2 light-duty vehicle emissions standards
will be phased in between model years 2004 and
2009. The heavy-duty diesel engine standards
will be phased in beginning in 2007.
Conserve by Bicycling Program
Sec. 755. The Department of
Transportation (DOT) would be directed
to conduct up to 10 pilot bicycling
projects to conserve energy. A minimum
of 20% of each project’s costs would
have to be provided by state or local
sources. Also, DOT would be directed to
engage the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct a research study on
the feasibility of converting motor
vehicle trips to bicycle trips.
Sec. 732. Similar provision, except that
the cost-sharing requirement could be
met by any “non-federal sources.”
Reduction of Engine Idling of
Heavy-Duty Vehicles
Sec. 756. EPA would be required to
study whether existing air emission
models accurately reflect emissions from
idling vehicles. Further, EPA would be
required to establish a program to support
the deployment of idle-reduction
technologies. A total of $95 million
would be authorized for FY2006 through
FY2008 for the deployment program.
Sec. 733. Similar provision.
CRS-69
Provision
House
Senate
Biodiesel Engine Testing
Program
Sec. 757. The Secretary of Energy would
be required to study the effects of
biodiesel and biodiesel blends on current
and future emissions control
technologies. $5 million would be
authorized annually for FY2006 through
FY2010.
Sec. 734. Similar provision.
High Occupancy Vehicle
Exception
Sec. 758. The Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21, P.L. 105178) would be amended to allow states to
exempt hybrid and dedicated alternative
fuel vehicles from high occupancy
vehicle (HOV) restrictions.
No comparable provision.
Ultra-Efficient Engine
Technology for Aircraft
Sec. 759. The Secretary of Energy, in
cooperation with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration,
would be required to develop new engine
technology for aircraft with a goal of a
10% increase in fuel efficiency and a
70% decrease in nitrogen oxide
emissions during takeoff and landing. A
total of $225 million would be authorized
between FY2006 and FY2010.
No comparable provision.
Comments
Through September 30, 2003, states had the
authority to exempt certain types of alternative
fuel vehicles from the restrictions. However,
hybrid vehicles and some alternative fuel vehicles
did not qualify. As the existing authorization has
expired, states do not currently have the authority
to exempt any type of alternative fuel vehicle from
HOV restrictions.
CRS-70
Automobile Efficiency
Provision
House
Senate
Fuel Economy Standards
Sec. 771. Would authorize $2 million
annually during FY2006-FY2010 for the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) to carry out fuel
economy rulemakings.
Sec. 712. Same, except $5 million
annually.
Increased fuel economy
standards
No comparable provision.
Sec. 712. This would require the
Secretary of Transportation to issue new
CAFE standards for light-duty trucks by
April 1, 2006. These would apply
beginning with MY2007. Final
regulations for increasing passenger
automobile fuel economy would be
required not later than 30 months after
enactment of the legislation.
Criteria to be taken into account
in setting maximum feasible fuel
economy standards.
Sec. 772. Would expand the criteria that
the agency would be required to take into
account in setting maximum feasible fuel
economy for cars and light trucks,
including the effects of prospective
standards on vehicle safety and automotive
industry employment.
Sec. 711. Would add more criteria than
the House bill, including the extent to
which advanced technologies might
achieve significant reductions in fuel
consumption and the extent to which
meeting higher CAFE standards might
divert resources from developing these
advanced technologies.
Expedited procedures for
Congressional increase in fuel
economy standards.
No comparable provision.
Sec. 713. In the event that the Secretary
of Transportation does not promulgate
new standards (as specified in Sec. 712),
the Senate bill would provide expedited
procedures for passage of legislation by
Congress to set new CAFE standards.
Comments
CRS-71
Provision
House
Senate
Extension of maximum fuel
economy increase for alternative
fueled vehicles.
Sec. 773. Would also extend corporate
average fuel economy (CAFE) credits that
accrue to manufacturers of dual-fueled
vehicles. The cap to the credit of 1.2 miles
per gallon (mpg) earned by any individual
manufacturer would be extended to model
year (MY) 2010.
It was otherwise
scheduled to drop to a cap of 0.9 mpg
beginning in MY2005. The bill would
postpone institution of the 0.9 cap until
MY2011 and authorize it through
MY2014.
Sec. 714. Would also extend corporate
average fuel economy (CAFE) credits
that accrue to manufacturers of dualfueled vehicles. The cap to the credit of
1.2 miles per gallon (mpg) earned by any
individual manufacturer would be
extended to MY2008. The bill would
postpone institution of the 0.9 cap until
MY2009 and authorize it through
MY2012.
Study about significantly
reducing gasoline consumption
by model year (MY) 2012.
Sec. 774. Would require the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration to
explore the feasibility and effects of
reducing automobile fuel consumption “a
significant percentage” by MY2014.
Sec. 1309. Similar to the House bill, but
goal is achieving the “significant
reduction” by 2012.
Adjustment to estimated in-use
fuel economy posted on new
vehicles.
Sec. 775. Would require adjustment of
tested fuel economy levels so that
estimates posted on new vehicles would be
closer to experience. Adjustments would
include use of air conditioning, higher
speed limits, and faster acceleration rates.
No comparable provision.
Study of link between energy
security and increases in vehicle
miles traveled.
No comparable provision
Sec. 1336. Requires study by the
National Academy of Sciences with a
similar objective to the study specified in
Sec. 1309, but would examine links
between and development patterns and
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and
whether VMT and the number of vehicle
Comments
CRS-72
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
trips can be reduced by better planning,
design, development and infrastructure
decisions by state and local officials
Hydrogen
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Definitions
Sec. 801. Definitions of “fuel cell” and
other terms are provided.
Sec. 801. Would amend and reauthorize
the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen
Research, Development, and
Demonstration Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12401 et seq.).
Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12401 et seq.) authorizes hydrogen and
fuel cell research at the Department of Energy.
Funding levels were authorized through FY2001,
although research is ongoing.
Plan
Sec. 802. Would require the Secretary of
Energy to develop a plan for the
development of hydrogen fuel and fuel
cells.
No comparable provision.
Interagency Task Force and
Advisory Committee
Secs. 804 and 805. Would establish an
Interagency Task Force to coordinate
federal research (Sec. 804), and would
establish a Hydrogen Technical and Fuel
Cell Advisory Committee to advise the
Secretary and review the development
plan (Sec.805).
Sec. 102 (of the amended Matsunaga
Act). Would establish an Interagency
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Task
Force to advise the Secretary on the
implementation of the act. Would also
establish a Technical Advisory
Committee to provide technical
assistance to the Secretary and the task
force.
Current law established a Hydrogen Technical
Advisory Panel to advise the Secretary on
programs under the Act. Further, the Act gives
the Secretary the authority to consult with other
agencies, but does not require the Secretary to do
so.
CRS-73
Provision
House
Senate
External Review
Sec. 806. DOE’s plans for the hydrogen
program would be reviewed by the
National Academy of Sciences.
No comparable provision.
Miscellaneous Provision
Sec. 807. The Secretary of Energy would
be authorized to represent U.S. interests
related to hydrogen programs
domestically and internationally in
coordination with relevant federal
agencies.
No comparable provision.
Savings Clause
Sec. 808. Specified authorities of the
Secretary of Transportation would not be
affected.
No comparable provision.
Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 809. A total of $4 billion would be
authorized for FY2006 through FY2010
for all hydrogen and fuel cell research,
development, and demonstration
activities.
Sec. 801. A total of $3.3 billion would
be authorized for FY2006 through
FY2010 in the following areas: $1.06
billion for hydrogen supply research and
development (Sec. 104 of the amended
Act); $0.86 billion for fuel cell research
and development (Sec. 104); $1.31
billion for demonstration programs (Sec.
202); $0.04 billion for codes and
standards.
Solar and Wind Technologies
Sec. 810. Would create program of five
pilot projects to demonstrate the use of
solar energy to produce hydrogen.
Further, would create a program of five
pilot projects to demonstrate the use of
wind energy to produce hydrogen. DOE
would be directed to support research
No comparable provision.
Comments
CRS-74
Provision
House
Senate
programs at universities that study the
use of solar and wind energy
technologies to produce hydrogen.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Buses
Sec. 811. The Secretary of Energy,
through the Advanced Vehicle
Technologies Program, would be
required to establish four fuel cell bus
demonstration sites.
No comparable provision.
Definitions
No comparable provision.
Sec. 741. Provides definitions for
Sections 742 and 743.
Federal and State Procurement
of Fuel Cell Vehicles and
Hydrogen Energy Systems
No comparable provision.
Sec. 742. All federal agencies that use
light- or heavy-duty vehicles would be
required to lease or purchase fuel cell
vehicles and hydrogen energy systems.
The Secretary of Energy would be
required to pay federal agencies the
incremental cost of the new systems. The
Secretary of Energy would be permitted
to establish cooperative program with
state agencies to encourage the purchase
of fuel cell vehicles. A total of $105
million would be authorized between
FY2006 and FY2008.
Federal Procurement of
Stationary, Portable, and Micro
Fuel Cells
No comparable provision.
Sec. 743. All federal agencies that use
electrical power from stationary,
portable, or microportable devices would
be required to lease or purchase
stationary, portable, or micro fuel cells.
The Secretary of Energy would be
Comments
CRS-75
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
required to pay or share the cost of the
new systems. The Secretary of Energy
would be permitted to establish
cooperative program with state agencies
to encourage the purchase of fuel cell
vehicles. A total of $345 million would
be authorized between FY2006 and
FY2010.
Research and Development
Provision
House
Senate
Short Title; Definitions
Sec. 900. This title would be referred to
as the “Energy Research, Development,
Demonstration, and Commercial
Application Act of 2005.” Defines, for
the purposes of this title, the terms
applied programs, biomass, Department,
departmental mission, institution of
higher education, National Laboratory,
renewable energy, Secretary, State,
university, and user facility.
Secs. 901-903. Same short title as House
bill. Defines departmental mission,
Hispanic-serving institution, nonmilitary
energy laboratory, part B institution, and
single-purpose research facility. DOE
would be required to publish “measurable
cost and performance-based goals” for
each major energy R&D area.
Support for Science and Energy
Facilities and Infrastructure
No comparable provision.
Sec. 963. DOE would be required to
develop a strategy for science and energy
R&D infrastructure and describe the
strategy in the FY2007 budget request.
Comments
CRS-76
Science Programs
Provision
House
Senate
Office of Science Programs
Sec. 901. The programs of the Office of
Science would be authorized in general,
and DOE would be directed to commence
construction of the Rare Isotope
Accelerator no later than September 30,
2008. Expenditures on the Rare Isotope
Accelerator prior to operation would be
limited to $1.1 billion.
No similar provision.
Systems Biology Program
(House) / Genomes to Life
Program (Senate)
Sec. 902. DOE would be directed to
establish a program of research,
development, and demonstration in
genetics, protein science, and
computational biology, with specified
goals. DOE would have to submit a
research plan for this program to
Congress within one year and contract
with the National Academy of Sciences
to review the plan within an additional 18
months. Biomedical research and
research related to humans would not be
permitted as part of the program.
Sec. 968. DOE would be directed to
carry out a program of research,
development, demonstration, and
commercial application in microbial and
plant systems biology, protein science,
and computational biology, with
specified goals, to be known as the
“Genomes to Life Program.” DOE
would have to prepare a program plan
and update its short-term goals each year
together with the annual budget
submission.
Catalysis Research and
Development Program
Sec. 903. DOE would be directed to
conduct a program of R&D in catalysis
science.
Sec. 964. Similar to the House provision.
Program content would be specified in
more detail. In addition, a triennial
assessment of the program by the
National Academy of Sciences would be
required.
Comments
CRS-77
Provision
House
Senate
Hydrogen
Sec. 904. DOE would be directed to
conduct a program of fundamental R&D
in support of the hydrogen programs
authorized in Title VIII.
Sec. 965. In addition to the House
language, the hydrogen program would
be required to include support for
generating hydrogen without the use of
natural gas.
Solid State Lighting
No similar provision.
Sec. 966. DOE would be directed to
conduct a program of research on
advanced solid state lighting in support
of the initiative established by Sec. 912.
Advanced Scientific Computing
Research
Sec. 905. DOE would be directed to
conduct a program of R&D in advanced
scientific computing, including applied
mathematics and the activities authorized
by the Department of Energy High-End
Computing Revitalization Act of 2004
(P.L. 108-423).
Sec. 967. Similar to the House provision,
with the addition of advanced
visualization techniques as one of the
goals of the program. In addition, Sec.
203 of the High-Performance Computing
Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5523) would be
amended as follows: DOE’s general
responsibilities as part of the interagency
National High-Performance Computing
Program would be modified; DOE would
no longer be required, as part of that
program, to establish consortia, engage in
technology transfer, or submit an annual
report (but these activities would not be
prohibited); and the authorization of
appropriations for the program for fiscal
years already completed would be
replaced by a general authorization of
“such sums as are necessary.”
Comments
CRS-78
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Fusion Energy Sciences
Program
Sec. 906. Research, development,
demonstration, and commercial
application directed at competitiveness in
fusion energy, including a demonstration
of the utilization of fusion energy to
produce electric power or hydrogen,
would be declared to be U.S. policy.
DOE would be directed to submit a plan
to carry out that policy. Authority would
be given for the United States to
participate in the international fusion
energy experiment known as ITER
(International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor). DOE would be
directed to develop a plan for ITER
participation and have it reviewed by the
National Academy of Sciences. Funds
could not be expended for ITER
construction until the plan and other
reports were provided to Congress. If
construction of ITER appeared unlikely,
DOE would be directed to submit a plan
for a domestic burning plasma
experiment.
Sec. 962. Similar to the House provision.
In addition, DOE would be directed to
include in the fusion policy plan, to the
extent possible, the recommendations on
workforce planning that were made in
March 2004 by DOE’s Fusion Energy
Sciences Advisory Committee.
The United States withdrew from the design phase
of ITER in 1998 at congressional direction,
largely because of concerns about cost and scope.
The project has since been restructured, and in
January 2003, the Administration announced its
intention to reenter the project. Other international
partners include the European Union, Japan,
Russia, China, and South Korea. A site in France
was officially selected on June 28, 2005.
Fission and Fusion Energy
Materials Research Program
No similar provision.
Sec. 969. DOE would be directed to
establish a program of R&D on materials
science for advanced fission reactors and
DOE’s fusion energy program.
CRS-79
Provision
House
Senate
Energy-Water Supply
Technologies Program
No similar provision.
Sec. 970. A program would be
established, within the Biological and
Environmental Research program of the
DOE Office of Science, to study energyrelated issues associated with water
supply and water supply issues related to
energy production. Arsenic removal,
desalination, and water resource
sustainability would be among the areas
to be investigated. Research projects
under this section would not require costsharing, despite Sec. 1002 (see below),
but demonstration projects would.
Spallation Neutron Source
No similar provision.
Sec. 971. DOE would be directed to
submit to Congress an annual progress
report on the Spallation Neutron Source
and develop an operational plan for the
facility that meets specified requirements.
Appropriations would be authorized for
the lifetime of the project overall and for
certain related items in FY2006, FY2007,
and FY2008.
Science and Technology
Scholarship Program
Sec. 907. DOE would be authorized to
establish a scholarship program to help
recruit and prepare students for careers in
DOE. Scholarship recipients would be
required to work for DOE for 24 months
per academic year of scholarship
received.
No similar provision.
Comments
Construction of the Spallation Neutron Source, a
research facility at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, is expected to be completed during
FY2006.
CRS-80
Provision
House
Senate
Workforce Trends and
Traineeship Grants
No comparable section.
Sec. 1101. Would require Secretary
report to Congress, within 1 year, on
current trends under trends in the
workforce in skilled technical personnel
that support energy technology
industries; and electric power and
transmission engineers; and establish
grant programs to enhance training for
any workforce category for which a
shortage is identified or predicted.
Energy Research Fellowships
No comparable section.
Sec. 1102. Would establish a
Postdoctoral Fellowship Program to
encourage outstanding young scientists
and engineers to pursue postdoctoral
research appointments in energy research
and development at institutions of higher
education of their choice.
Educational Programs in
Science and Mathematics
No comparable section.
Sec. 1103. Would amend the Department
of Energy Science Education
Enhancement Act (42 U.S.C. 7381a) by
requiring the Energy Secretary to use not
less than 0.2 percent of the amount made
available to DOE for fiscal year 2006 and
each fiscal year thereafter to carry out
authorized activities. The section would
also amend 42 U.S.C. 7381b by adding
provisions for competitive events for
students, competitively-awarded, peerreviewed programs to promote
professional development for math and
science teachers, summer internships for
Comments
CRS-81
Provision
House
Senate
teachers. The Energy Secretary would
enter into an arrangement with the
National Academy of Public
Administration to conduct a study of the
priorities, quality, local and regional
flexibility, and plans for educational
programs at Department research and
development facilities.
Improved Access to Energyrelated Scientific and Technical
Careers.
No comparable section.
Sec. 1106. Would amend the Department
of Energy Science Education
Enhancement Act (42 U.S.C. 7381a) by
adding at the end the following:
Programs for Students from Underrepresented Groups; and Partnerships
with Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, Hispanic- Serving
Institutions, and Tribal Colleges.
Office of Scientific and
Technical Information
Sec. 908. DOE would be directed to
maintain the Office of Scientific and
Technical Information.
No similar provision.
Science and Engineering Pilot
Program
Sec. 909. DOE would be directed to
award a grant to Oak Ridge Associated
Universities to establish a regional pilot
program to enhance scientific,
technological, engineering, and
mathematical literacy, creativity, and
decisionmaking. The program would
involve research universities, universities
No similar provision.
Comments
CRS-82
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
Sec. 961. Appropriations would be
authorized for the Office of Science for
FY2006 through FY2008, at levels
somewhat higher than in the House bill.
Within these totals, appropriations would
be authorized for the individual programs
described in Secs. 962, 964, 968, and
970.
See also Senate Secs. 967 and 971 above
regarding authorization of appropriations for the
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
program and the Spallation Neutron Source
facility, both of which are in the Office of
Science.
Comments
that train elementary and secondary
school teachers, and DOE national
laboratories. A report would be required
on lessons learned from the pilot
program, including a plan for expanding
the program nationwide.
Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 910. Appropriations would be
authorized for the Office of Science for
FY2006 through FY2010, with increases
of 10%-15% per year. Within these
totals, appropriations would be
authorized for the individual programs
described in Secs. 902, 905, 906 (except
ITER), 907, 908, and 909.
Appropriations for construction of ITER
would be authorized separately, as would
appropriations for integrated bioenergy
R&D for FY2005 through FY2009.
Research Administration and Operations
Provision
House
Senate
Cost Sharing
Sec. 911. Cost sharing would be required
for programs carried out under this title.
The minimum non-federal share would
be 20% for R&D programs and 50% for
demonstration and commercial
application programs, but DOE could
lower or waive these requirements in
Sec. 1002. Cost sharing would be
required activities under this title. Not
less than 20 % of the cost R&D activity
would provided by a non-Federal source,
and 50% for demonstration or
commercial application activity. DOE
could reduce the non-Federal share in
CRS-83
Provision
House
Senate
certain circumstances.
consideration of any technological risk.
This section would not apply to a
cooperative R&D agreement under the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act.
Reprogramming
Sec. 912. Within 60 days after any
appropriation authorized under this title,
DOE would be required to report to
Congress on how the appropriated
amounts would be distributed.
Subsequent reprogramming would be
limited to the lesser of 2% or $2 million
unless reported to Congress with at least
30 days’ notice.
No comparable section.
Merit-Based Competition
Sec. 913. Awards of funds authorized
under this title would be permitted only
through open competitions following an
impartial review of scientific and
technical merit.
Sec. 1003. Awards of funds authorized
under this title would be made only after
an impartial review of the scientific and
technical merit.
External Technical Review of
Departmental Programs
Sec. 914. Advisory committees would be
established for DOE programs in energy
efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear
energy, and fossil energy. The
requirement could be met by existing
DOE committees. Existing advisory
committees would continue for the
programs of the Office of Science, and
the chairs of the Office of Science
committees would constitute a Science
Advisory Committee for the Director of
Sec. 1004. Advisory boards would be
established to review DOE research,
development, demonstration, and
commercial application programs. The
scientific program advisory committees
chartered under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act would continue to used
by the Office of Science to oversee
research and development programs
under that Office. DOE would also enter
into arrangements with the National
Comments
CRS-84
Provision
House
Senate
the Office. DOE would be directed to
arrange with the National Academy of
Sciences to review and assess the
programs authorized by this title, and
reports on the results of these reviews
and assessments would be due to
Congress within two years of enactment.
Academy of Sciences to conduct periodic
reviews and assessments of the
authorized programs. The Secretary of
Energy would report to Congress
describing the results of all the reviews
and assessments.
Competitive Award of
Management Contracts
Sec. 915. Management and operating
contracts for DOE national laboratories
(except Livermore, Los Alamos, Sandia,
and Savannah River) would have to be
awarded competitively unless the
Secretary of Energy granted a waiver on
a case-by-case basis. The Secretary
would not be permitted to delegate his
waiver authority and would have to
notify Congress at least 60 days before
awarding a non-competitive contract.
No comparable section.
National Laboratory
Designation
Sec. 916. DOE would be prohibited from
designating additional facilities as
national laboratories, beyond those
defined in Sec. 900.
No comparable section.
Report on Equal Employment
Opportunity Practices
Sec. 917. DOE would be required to
report to Congress with one year and
every two years thereafter on equal
employment opportunity practices at the
national laboratories.
No comparable section.
Comments
In the past, management contracts at most DOE
laboratories have been extended without
competition. In some cases, laboratories have been
managed by the same contractor for 60 years or
more. In November 2003, DOE released the report
of a blue-ribbon commission that it established to
examine this issue. The commission’s report is
available online at [http://www.seab.doe.gov/
publications/brcDraftRpt.pdf]. It states that “the
issue of whether competition should be routinely
used for research and development laboratories is
subject to wide and varied opinions.”
CRS-85
Provision
House
Senate
Comments
User Facility Best Practices Plan
Sec. 918. No DOE facility would be
permitted to begin operating as a user
facility unless DOE had developed and
transmitted to Congress a plan for
staffing the facility, allocating time fairly
to its users, and operating it in a safe and
fiscally prudent manner.
No comparable section.
DOE user facilities are available to outside
researchers.
Support for Science and Energy
Infrastructure and Facilities
Sec. 919. DOE would be directed to
develop and implement a strategy for
maintaining existing facilities and
infrastructure, closing unnecessary
facilities, modifying facilities, and
building new facilities. A report to
Congress would be required by June 1,
2007, summarizing the strategy.
No comparable section.
Coordination Plan
Sec. 920. DOE would be directed to
develop a plan to improve coordination
and collaboration in research,
development, demonstration, and
commercial application activities across
DOE organizational boundaries. A
conference of program managers from
the Office of Science and the applied
programs would be convened as part of
the process of developing this plan. DOE
would be required to transmit the plan to
Congress within nine months and
transmit a revised version every two
years thereafter.
No comparable section.
CRS-86
Provision
House
Senate
Improved Technology Transfer
of Energy Technologies
No comparable section.
Sec. 1005. A Technology Transfer
Coordinator would be appointed as
principal advisor on all matters relating
to technology transfer and
commercialization. A Technology
Transfer Working Group, would be
established consisting of representatives
of the National Laboratories and research
facilities. An Energy Technology
Commercialization Fund, using 0.5% of
the amount made available to DOE for
each fiscal year, would be used to
provide matching funds with private
partners to promote promising
technologies for commercial purposes.
Not later than 180 days after enactment
of this title, the En
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.