# Omnibus Energy Legislation, 109th Congress: Side-by-Side Assessment of House and Senate Versions of H.R. 6 > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL33006 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** July 25, 2005 - **Citation:** RL33006 ## 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL33006. Public record. Not legal advice.