Order Code IB10143
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Energy Policy: Comprehensive Energy Legislation
(H.R. 6, S. 10) in the 109th Congress
Updated June 20, 2005
Robert L. Bamberger
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Carl E. Behrens
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
109th Congress
Ethanol and MTBE
Climate Change
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)
Electricity Restructuring
Fuel Economy
Renewable Energy and Fuels
Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Energy Tax Policy
The President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
Nuclear Energy
LEGISLATION

---

IB10143
06-20-05
Energy Policy: Comprehensive Energy Legislation (H.R. 6, S. 10)
in the 109th Congress
SUMMARY
The Senate took up the Energy Policy
rejected by the House in passing its version of
Act of 2005, H.R. 6, beginning June 14. Its
H.R. 6.
first action was to substitute the text of S. 10
(S.Rept. 109-78), which was ordered reported
Climate Change. Amendments are
by the Committee on Energy and Natural
expected during the week of June 20 that
Resources May 26. The Senate bill is similar
would address global warming and set limits
to the House-passed version, but major differ-
on carbon emissions.
ences exist, including the following areas.
Tax Provisions. The Administration’s
Ethanol and MTBE. The House bill
FY2006 budget request calls for a limit of
includes a “safe harbor” provision to protect
$6.7 billion in energy tax credits. The tax
methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) refiners
incentive provisions of the House-passed H.R.
from product liability suits, while the Senate
6 have an estimated cost of $8.1 billion. The
bill does not. Both bills would repeal the
Senate tax provisions, as revealed by the Joint
Clean Air Act requirement for oxegenated
Committee on Taxation, include more incen-
gasoline that led to the use of MTBE, and both
tives for conservation and renewables than the
would require refiners to use biofuel (presum-
House bill. The tax provisions, approved by
ably mostly ethanol), but the House bill sets a
the Senate Finance Committee June 16, val-
goal of 5 billion gallons per year by 2012 and
ued at $14.1 billion over 11 years, will be
the Senate bill would require 8 billion gallons.
offered as an amendment on the floor.
ANWR. Leasing of part of the Arctic
Outer Continental Shelf. An amend-
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil and
ment in the Senate committee to permit states
gas development would be permitted by a
to opt out of federal moratoria on new off-
provision in the House bill, but not in the
shore drilling was withdrawn. However, a
Senate bill. However, on April 28 the House
provision to require an inventory of oil and
and Senate approved a final budget resolution
natural gas resources on the Outer Continental
implicitly calling for ANWR to be opened to
Shelf (OCS) was adopted in the Senate bill.
provide oil and gas leasing revenue.
The House-passed H.R. 6 also makes no
changes to the moratoria, but does not call for
Electricity Restructuring. Both the
a resource study.
House and the Senate bills would repeal the
Public Utility Holding Company Act
Siting of LNG Terminals. Provisions to
(PUHCA), but the Senate bill has provisions
permit the Federal Energy Regulatory Com-
for more stringent oversight of utility mergers
mission (FERC) to decide on the siting of
than the House version.
liquefied natural gas terminals are opposed by
some policymakers as an override of states’
Renewable Energy. On June 16 the
rights. An amendment to eliminate these
Senate adopted a “renewable portfolio stan-
provisions from the House version of H.R. 6
dard” (RPS) requiring utilities to generate at
had insufficient support (194-237). The provi-
least 10% of their electricity from renewable
sions in the Senate bill are milder.
energy sources by 2020. The provision was
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10143
06-20-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Senate took up H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, on June 14, its first action
being to adopt as a substitute the text of S. 10 (S.Rept. 109-78), which the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources ordered reported May 26. The House passed its version of
H.R. 6 on April 21 by a vote of 249-183. On June 16, the Senate adopted an amendment by
Senator Bingaman requiring utilities to generate at least 10% of their electricity from
renewable energy sources by 2020. An amendment by Senator Cantwell, which would have
set the goal of reducing petroleum imports by 40% by 2025, was defeated on the floor by a
vote of 47-53.
Information on the energy tax provisions being marked up by the Senate Finance
Committee became available on June 14. For details on the $14.1 billion, 11-year tax title,
see CRS Issue Brief IB10054, Energy Tax Policy, by Salvatore Lazzari. Amendments are
expected during the week of June 20 that would address global warming and set limits on
carbon emissions. For additional information, see CRS Report RL32953, Climate Change:
Comparison and Analysis of S. 1151 and the Draft “Climate and Economy Insurance Act
of 2005,” by Brent Yacobucci and Larry Parker.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
(Note: The House has designated the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in the 109th Congress
as H.R. 6, the same number as the energy bill considered in the 108th Congress. References
in the introduction and elsewhere to H.R. 6 in the 108th Congress are designated by [108]
following the bill number. The Senate is also considering its version of the energy bill as
H.R. 6.)
Since the time of the Arab oil embargo in 1973-1974, the United States and other major
energy consumers have achieved greater efficiencies in energy use in all sectors of the
economy.1 However, national and world energy demand continues to grow, and domestic
oil production in the United States continues to decline as the more accessible resources of
crude from U.S. fields in Alaska and elsewhere have been tapped. 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) daily after the Arab oil embargo, now
exceed 10 million mbd to satisfy U.S. oil consumption of nearly 21 mbd.2
As with any commodity, the price of crude oil and petroleum-based products can be
volatile. In the last few years, a number of factors have contributed to sharp increases in the
price of oil. Demand for petroleum by developing nations and the Far East had put pressure
on current world production and refining capacity. Attacks upon Iraqi pipelines supplying
1 For a more thorough review of energy policy since the mid-1970s and a broader framework for the
current debate, see CRS Report RL31720, Energy Policy: Historical Overview, Conceptual
Framework, and Continuing Issues.
2 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-1

---

IB10143
06-20-05
oil to world markets, and a general uncertainty about stability in the Middle East, have also
contributed to nervousness in world oil markets. Inventories of crude and some petroleum
product inventories were already below year-earlier levels, and were continuing to decline
or hold steady, raising the specter of home heating oil shortages if winter 2004-2005 proved
to be a cold one. A major factor contributing to high prices was Hurricane Ivan, which
rampaged through the Gulf Coast in mid-September, and temporarily shut down more than
70% of U.S. offshore crude production, affecting crude oil deliveries to refineries. Inventory
levels of crude oil and petroleum products declined.
Some of the decline in domestic production has been partially offset by growing
production from “deep water” fields in the Gulf of Mexico that now exceeds 900,000 barrels
daily, or roughly 60% of all production from the Gulf. Deep water production is projected
to reach 2.25 million barrels daily by 2010. The Minerals Management Service of the
Department of the Interior has estimated potential deep water reserves of 56 billion barrels.3
By mid-March 2005, crude prices exceeded $50/barrel and, for the most part, have
remained at that level or higher into the latter part of April. Prices have not met or exceeded
in real terms historic highs for oil prices. While energy policy touches on many problems
other than fossil fuel supply and demand, the price of oil — gasoline and home heating oil
in particular — is often the lever that spurs policymakers to discuss national energy policy
and to seek legislative initiatives to increase the supply of conventional fuels, promote the
development and use of alternative and renewable fuels, push for improvements in efficiency
of energy consumption, assure greater reliability in the electric utility sector, and review
existing and possible new incentives in the tax system to promote change in how the nation
uses energy. Not surprisingly, national energy policy received significant attention during
the 108th Congress.
Comprehensive energy legislation was reported from conference in the 108th Congress
in November 2003 and approved by the House shortly thereafter, but was not approved by
the Senate. Discussion of breaking out less controversial provisions was resisted by the
House and Senate leadership. They argued that the bill that had been crafted was a careful
balance of competing visions; breakup would leave more controversial provisions without
leverage for compromise. The main exception was that some energy tax incentives were
extended or adopted in the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-311) and the
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-357).
Major concerns in the Senate were the cost of H.R. 6 [108] — estimated at around $31
billion over 10 years — and a provision insisted upon by the House that would have
protected producers of methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) and renewable fuels from liability
for personal injury, property damage, and cleanup. Early in the second session of the 108th
Congress, a comprehensive bill (S. 2095) with a cost of roughly $14 billion was introduced
in the Senate, but did not reach the floor. Another controversial issue has been establishment
of a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) that would require utilities to use more renewable
fuel sources to generate electricity. Language to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR) to oil and gas development was not included in H.R. 6 [108].
3 [http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/deepwtr.html].
CRS-2

---

IB10143
06-20-05
Similar language is in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed by the House on April 21,
2005. At his confirmation hearing on January 19, 2005, before the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman indicated that he would
press for passage of an energy bill that would include provisions to open ANWR to leasing
and development. The FY2006 budget transmitted to Congress by the Bush Administration
supports opening ANWR to exploration and development. The budget projects bonus bid
revenues at $2.4 billion, half of which would accrue to the federal government and the
balance to Alaska. On March 9, 2005, the Senate Budget Committee issued a budget
resolution that assumes $2.5 billion of revenue over five years from leases in ANWR, and
would allocate $2.0 billion in mandatory spending to comprehensive energy legislation and
$4.5 billion for energy tax incentives. On March 16 the Senate rejected an amendment by
Senator Cantwell to strike the ANWR provisions, by a vote of 49-51. The next day the
Senate passed the budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 18). The House version of the budget
resolution (H.Con.Res. 95) passed on March 17 did not include ANWR provisions, but they
are a part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 passed by the House on April 21, 2005. On April
28, the House and Senate approved a final budget resolution with reconciliation instructions
requiring that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and House Committee
on Resources find $2.4 billion in savings through FY2010, implicitly calling for
authorization of exploration and development in ANWR.
Little in the conference version of H.R. 6 [108] would have addressed price and supply
issues in the near term — largely because there are very few policy options to address price
volatility. Many policymakers have characterized the Energy Policy Act of 2005 passed by
the House on April 21, 2005, similarly. In public remarks during the latter part of April 2005,
the President acknowledged that the bill would not affect energy prices in the near-term.
However, to the extent that production and refining capacity exists, high prices can
encourage additional supply. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
can provide financial support to households overwhelmed by high prices. In the event of a
price increase caused by a shortfall in physical supply of crude or home heating oil, the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR) might
be tapped.
It is difficult to achieve widespread consensus on national energy policy. Constructing
a balanced energy policy that will not undermine other competing and equally legitimate
policy goals is a complex undertaking. There is controversy about the impacts of energy
development on the environment, and policymakers have different positions about the extent
to which tradeoffs should be risked. Because of the regional diversity of the United States,
some policy options are not perceived to serve all regions of the nation advantageously.
These considerations help to explain why the time-consuming crafting of a comprehensive
bill in the 108th Congress was perceived to represent a fragile balance between competing
interests.
The fashioning of comprehensive energy legislation is also made more difficult by the
very price volatility that renews interest in national energy policy. A review of the course
of energy prices since the time of the Arab oil embargo and first oil price shock in 1973
reveals that it is a more proximate characterization to see this 30-year period as one of
general price and supply stability that is periodically broken by shorter episodes of supply
disruption and price volatility. It is not so much that energy policy has failed to be responsive
CRS-3

---

IB10143
06-20-05
to crises; rather, during lengthy periods of stability and declining prices for conventional
fuels, it has proven difficult to sustain certain policy courses that might help shield the nation
from the occasional episodes of instability.
109th Congress. On April 13, 2005, several House committees finished markup of
their respective portions of comprehensive energy legislation — the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Resources, and the Committee on Ways and
Means. For the most part, attempts by the minority to significantly amend the language of
the committee bills were unsuccessful. Debate on the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6)
began April 20, 2005, and the legislation was passed (249-183) the following day. Some of
the major features of H.R. 6 are discussed below. Overall, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as
passed by the House and the comprehensive legislation reported from conference in the 108th
Congress, but not enacted, are very similar. Important differences are the ANWR language,
fewer energy tax incentives, and inclusion of a refinery revitalization program that was
passed by the House (H.R. 4517) during the 108th Congress, but not by the Senate.
One of the major issues has been the cost of legislation providing energy tax credits.
The bill that went to conference in the 108th Congress (but was not enacted) included more
than $30 billion in tax credits. Some energy tax incentives were subsequently extended or
adopted in the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-311) and the American
Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-357). The Administration’s FY2006 budget request
calls for a limit of $6.7 billion in energy tax credits. The estimated cost of the provisions in
H.R. 6 is $8.1 billion over 11 years. The Senate tax provisions are expected by some to
include more incentives for conservation and renewables than the House bill, and to exceed
the level in the House bill.

The legislation reported from the House Committee on Resources (and now a part of
H.R. 6) would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to exploration and
development. An amendment on the floor of the House to delete ANWR from H.R. 6 was
also defeated (200-231). The legislation includes a “safe harbor” provision to protect methyl
tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) refiners from product liability suits, which was narrowly retained
after a close vote on an amendment that reached the floor to drop the language (213-219).
In the 108th Congress, this provision was included in the bill that was reported from
conference. However, there was opposition to this provision in the Senate and it had a
significant role in the defeat of the conference bill at the end of the first session of the 108th
Congress. It is unclear how its inclusion may affect Senate passage of an energy bill in the
109th Congress. House Republicans indicated that a compromise will be sought to satisfy the
other body.

On February 10, 2005, the House Science Committee reported H.R. 610, which includes
less controversial research and development provisions that were part of comprehensive
legislation debated in the 108th Congress. That legislation, approved by voice vote, would
authorize roughly $44.1 billion over five years for research of deep sea drilling, clean coal
technology, nuclear energy, fusion technology, and high-performance computers. The bill
also would authorize funding to improve energy efficiency of vehicles and buildings. These
provisions are also a part of H.R. 6.
Overall, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as passed by the House and the comprehensive
legislation reported from conference in the 108th Congress are very similar. Important
CRS-4

---

IB10143
06-20-05
differences are the ANWR language, fewer energy tax incentives, and inclusion of a refinery
revitalization program that was passed by the House (H.R. 4517) during the 108th Congress,
but not by the Senate. An amendment to drop the refinery program was defeated (182-248).
Provisions that permit the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to decide on the siting of
liquefied natural gas terminals are opposed by some policymakers as an override of states’
rights. An amendment to eliminate these provisions from H.R. 6 had insufficient support
(194-237).
In an address on energy policy on April 27, 2005, President Bush, proposed that new
refineries be built on the site of closed military facilities, and that federal tax credits on the
purchase of hybrid vehicles be extended to vehicles burning clean diesel fuel. The President
offered the services of the Administration to assist in helping to reconcile controversial
issues that might be standing in the way of enacting legislation.
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered reported
comprehensive energy legislation on May 26, 2005, and the bill was introduced as S. 10
(S.Rept. 109-78) on June 9. Floor debate began June14.
A general summary follows of issues that have gained attention in the energy policy
debate, with a summary of some of the major proposals included in the energy bill passed
by the House. Background about the debate in the 108th Congress is included where helpful.

Ethanol and MTBE. Of the many issues left unresolved in attempts to pass a
comprehensive energy bill in the 108th Congress, a primary stumbling block was the effort
to promote ethanol as an automobile fuel, and the related problem involving the gasoline fuel
additive MTBE. The provision, referred to as the “safe harbor” provision, would provide
protection from product liability lawsuits for producers of MTBE and renewable fuels.
The roots of the controversy lie in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which
mandated that “reformulated” gasoline required in some localities to improve air quality
contain 2% oxygen. This requirement could be met by adding ethanol to gasoline, but it
could also be achieved by adding a substance called methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE),
which had been produced in small quantities for many years as an octane enhancer. Because
MTBE was cheaper than ethanol and was easier to mix and transport, many refiners began
using it to meet the new standards.
However, as its use spread, it became apparent that MTBE tended to escape easily from
its fuel carriers and storage tanks, and contaminate water supplies, imparting a taste and odor
that was unpalatable even in small quantities. This development led to moves to restrict and
prohibit the use of MTBE. It also led a number of communities to sue refiners for the cost
of decontaminating their water supplies. At the same time, evidence began to accumulate
that oxygenating gasoline was not necessary to achieve the air quality benefits of
reformulated gasoline. (For additional information, see CRS Report RS21676, The
Safe-Harbor Provision for Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), by Aaron Flynn, and CRS
Report RL32865, Renewable Fuels and MTBE: A Comparison of Selected Legislative
Initiatives, by Brent D. Yacobucci, Mary E. Tiemann, and James E. McCarthy.)
The omnibus energy bills in the 108th Congress addressed this changing situation by
repealing the oxygenation requirement in the Clean Air Act, but adding a new mandate that
CRS-5

---

IB10143
06-20-05
gasoline have an increasing amount of renewable fuel, presumably ethanol. Consumption
of ethanol in gasoline in 2002 was 2.1 billion gallons. Under the renewable fuel standard in
H.R. 6, the amount required to be consumed would be 3.1 billion gallons in 2005 and 5.0
billion gallons by 2012. This would still be a small proportion of the total amount of
gasoline consumed, which was close to 150 billion gallons in 2004, but was expected to
stimulate the ethanol industry and the agricultural sector that supplies it. It was opposed by
oil industry interests, who complained of the mandated increase in consumption of ethanol,
which receives a substantial tax credit. Some suggested that it would raise prices locally,
despite the subsidy.
The measure was in the original House version of H.R. 6 [108], and remained in the
conference bill, where it was a major factor in the failure of the Senate cloture motion. It was
dropped from S. 2095 in an attempt to get the bill through the Senate, but on the House side
supporters of MTBE producers declared opposition to any bill that did not contain a safe
harbor provision.
In the 109th Congress, H.R. 6, as reported by the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce on April 13, 2005, retained the safe harbor provision, and also the ethanol
mandate; an amendment to remove the safe harbor provision was defeated in committee.
When H.R. 6 reached the floor of the House, opponents raised a point of order on the safe
harbor provision. The motion was defeated by a six-vote margin. The Senate version of
H.R. 6 does not contain the safe harbor provision. It also would increase the renewable
fuels/ethanol mandate from 5 billion gallons by 2012, in the House bill, to 8 billion gallons
by 2012.
Climate Change. Amendments are expected during the week of June 20 that would
address global warming and set limits on carbon emissions. Different approaches to global
warming have been debated in the past. However, on June 17, it was widely reported that
Senator Domenici was inclining to lend his support to an amendment developed by Senator
Bingaman that is based upon a proposal suggested in the final report of the National
Commission on Energy Policy, released in December 2004. The amendment would establish
mandatory caps — opposed by the Administration — on carbon dioxide emissions.
However, the caps would be tied to economic growth, and incorporate a “safety valve” that
would allow payments to DOE in lieu of reducing emissions. The amendment has been
characterized as less stringent than S. 1511, which would require that plant emissions be no
higher in 2010 than in 2000, a proposal that may also be introduced as an amendment on the
floor to H.R. 6. At the same time, the Bingaman amendment is regarded as more stringent
than other proposals (S. 387, S. 887) that would offer tax and loan incentives to encourage
a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. (For additional information, see CRS Report
RL32953, Climate Change: Comparison and Analysis of S. 1151 and the Draft “Climate and
Economy Insurance Act of 2005,” by Brent Yacobucci and Larry Parker.)

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Domestic oil production continues to
fall. Some argue that the nation should be seizing the opportunity to develop the oil and
natural gas resources that remain untapped. The potential Alaskan resources are high on this
list, with estimates of technically recoverable resources there ranging from a 95% probability
of 4.3 billion barrels to a 5% probability of 11.8 billion barrels. However, some argue that
drilling for oil in ANWR will have unacceptable environmental consequences on wildlife
and vegetation, and that the land should be left undisturbed.
CRS-6

---

IB10143
06-20-05
The legislation passed by the House during the 108th Congress would have opened up
ANWR, but the Senate bill did not. Once it became apparent that there were insufficient
votes in the Senate to pass an energy bill with ANWR provisions, the managers decided to
leave ANWR out of the final conference bill.
The FY2006 budget transmitted to Congress by the Administration supports opening
ANWR to exploration and development. The budget projects bonus bid revenues at $2.4
billion, half of which would accrue to the federal government and the balance to Alaska. On
March 9, 2005, the Senate Budget Committee issued a budget resolution that assumes $2.5
billion of revenue over five years from leases in ANWR, and would allocate $2.0 billion in
mandatory spending to comprehensive energy legislation and $4.5 billion for energy tax
incentives. On March 16 the Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Cantwell to strike
the ANWR provisions, by a vote of 49-51. The next day the Senate passed the budget
resolution (S.Con.Res. 18).
The House version of the budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95) passed on March 17 did
not include the ANWR provisions; however, the final version of the resolution passed by
both Houses on April 28, 2005, instructs the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources and the House Committee on Resources to find $2.4 billion in savings through
FY2010. Reconciliation legislation is not subject to Senate filibuster. Consequently, the
comprehensive energy bill reported from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources does not include language authorizing exploration and development of ANWR
as does the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6) passed by the House on April 21, 2005. An
amendment to strip the language from the House bill during the House debate was defeated
(200-231).
(For additional information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10136, The Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge: Controversies for the 109th Congress, by Lynne Corn.)
Electricity Restructuring. Since the early 1990s, the electric utility industry has
experienced a major transformation. Formerly the nationwide electricity system consisted
of vertically integrated utilities with defined service areas, which they were responsible for
supplying with power to meet demand. The rates they charged were set for the most part by
state utility commissions, as were some other activities. Most power generating capacity was
owned by the utilities themselves, as were transmission lines and power distribution systems.
Utility commissions determined rates based not only on the cost of power but also on the
need to fund additional plants to meet future power demand.
Starting in the 1980s, a number of unregulated entities began producing power for sale
to utilities at wholesale, and in 1992 the Energy Policy Act (EPACT, P.L. 102-486) removed
some of the regulatory barriers to such unregulated electricity generation. At present many
regulated utilities have sold their generating capacity and become essentially transmission
and distribution entities, and an increasing share of generating capacity across the nation is
owned and operated by companies not regulated as utilities. Many states have joined in
Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) to distribute independently produced power
to local utilities, but the details of these systems vary widely. The principle behind the
restructuring has been that power produced by a competitive market of independent
generators should be cheaper than that produced by a regulated monopoly.
CRS-7

---

IB10143
06-20-05
Most state restructuring plans have not immediately met initial expectations, and many
have faced serious problems. In California in particular, a combination of several factors,
including demonstrated manipulation of the market by some independent power producers,
resulted temporarily in power shortages and extremely high prices to some consumers. The
California experience slowed down the process of restructuring in many other states, and also
raised barriers to an effort in the Congress to produce a uniform national restructuring
system. A massive power failure in much of the Northeast in 2003 added demands for
improving the reliability of power transmission systems between regions. As a result of
these various developments, the electricity provisions of major energy policy bills have been
a source of major controversy. The main issue is not whether utility restructuring should take
place; it is the federal role in guiding a restructuring process that is already taking place.
The major legislative issues in electricity restructuring are:
! enforceable standards for transmission system operation and reliability;
! repeal of Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), which utilities say
they need in order to operate in the new competitive market, but which
critics fear will threaten consumer interests;
! the role of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in setting
rules for marketing independent power production; and
! access to utility-owned transmission lines by independent producers.
Measures to improve the reliability of the transmission grid have gathered wide support,
and all the major energy legislation contained reliability provisions. However, as the broad
energy legislation foundered in the 108th Congress, a split developed between those who
wanted to push a stand-alone reliability bill and those who insisted on keeping it in the
comprehensive bill.
PUHCA was enacted in the 1930s to keep speculation in utility stocks and finances
from affecting the utility’s ability to provide power to its service area. Utilities are under
regulation from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and can invest in non-utility
activities only if SEC finds that it will improve efficiency and service to utility customers.
Advocates of PUHCA repeal argue that the statute is outdated and burdensome to utilities
in the new competitive environment, and point to the abuses that led to the bankruptcy of
Enron. The company had declared itself exempt from PUHCA regulation, and its self-
declaration was not challenged until after the abuses were discovered, when an SEC
administrative judge denied it. (For details, see [http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/enron.htm#
enron_exempt].) Because these events occurred with PUHCA still on the books, repeal
advocates contend that the statute is ineffective. But PUHCA repeal still has many
opponents, who point out that utilities are still responsible for distributing power to
customers, and their ability to do so could be adversely affected by unregulated and
unsupervised activities and investments.
Until the restructuring and rise of unregulated power generators, FERC had the rather
minor role in the power industry of regulating wholesale interstate transfers of power.
Restructuring has thrust FERC into a much more important role of regulating the distribution
of power from generators, some of them out of state, to utilities. FERC’s activities during
and following the California crisis have been highly controversial. In addition, FERC has
proposed a rulemaking on “standard market design” (SMD) to create wholesale power
CRS-8

---

IB10143
06-20-05
markets that would allow sellers to transact easily across transmission grid boundaries
(FERC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No. RM01-12-000, 18 C.F.R. Part 35, July
31, 2002). This proposal has also raised concerns in some states that have resisted or delayed
restructuring.
These issues were dealt with differently in the various bills considered in the 108th
Congress. All the major bills contained some reliability measures, but issues of consumer
protection, of market design and the role of FERC, and numerous other questions remained
unresolved. All the major bills in the last Congress repealed PUHCA, as does the version
of H.R. 6 in the 109th Congress passed by the House. S. 10 also includes PUHCA repeal
language, but in markup a provision to give FERC additional merger review authority was
added. The House-passed merger review provision would give FERC jurisdiction over
transmission transactions. However, S. 10 FERC merger review authority would also apply
to natural gas utilities and generation-only transactions. In addition, S. 10 requires FERC
to determine that cross-subsidization would not result from a merger.
Most other electricity provisions in the House-passed H.R. 6 and S. 10 are essentially
those contained in the electricity title as approved by the conference committee on H.R. 6 in
the 108th Congress. Amendments to make major changes in this title of the bill were rejected
during markup by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. One feature of that title,
Sec. 1242 in the Committee Print, providing for “participant funding” of transmission
projects, raised opposition from a number of interested parties as being inflexible and
potentially inequitable, and was dropped in markup. (For additional information, see CRS
Report RL32925, Electric Utility Provisions in House-Passed H.R. 6, 109th Congress, by
Amy Abel, and CRS Report RL32728, Electric Utility Regulatory Reform: Issues for the
109th Congress, by Amy Abel.)
Fuel Economy. Gasoline and diesel fuel consumption account for roughly 50% of
U.S. total petroleum consumption. Many argue that higher requirements for new vehicle fuel
economy could go far in reducing automobile fuel consumption or holding consumption
levels steady in future years. One of the first initiatives designed to have a significant effect
on vehicle fuel demand was passage of corporate average fuel economy standards (CAFE)
in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA, P.L. 94-163). Under the
standards, the average fuel economy of all vehicles of a given class that a manufacturer sells
in a model year must be equal to, or greater than the standard. In the years since enactment,
there have been periodic calls for stiffening or broadening the applicability of CAFE
standards — especially as consumer demand has turned more to light-duty trucks and sport
utility vehicles (SUVs), for which CAFE standards are set at a lower level than for passenger
automobiles. The standard for passenger automobiles is 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg).
The 107th Congress lifted a prohibition on expenditure of appropriated funds by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to undertake CAFE rulemakings.
The lifting of the prohibition on NHTSA was a significant development, restoring the ability
of NHTSA to perform analysis and rulemaking as it had until the rider was first imposed for
FY1996. On April 1, 2003, NHTSA issued a final rule to boost the CAFE of light-duty
trucks by 1.5 mpg by 2007. The rule sets the interim standards at 21.0 mpg for model year
(MY) 2005, 21.6 mpg for MY2006, and 22.2 for MY2007, and is the first increase in CAFE
since MY1996.
CRS-9

---

IB10143
06-20-05
A study by the National Commission on Energy Policy released in early December 2004
recommended that Congress instruct NHTSA to raise the standards to take advantage of
current technologies that have been used to enable vehicles to have more size and power
without reductions to baseline fuel economy.4
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 passed by the House on April 21, 2005, includes
provisions strongly similar to language that appeared in the omnibus energy legislation
reported from conference during the 108th Congress. The legislation would authorize $2
million annually during FY2006-FY2010 for the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) to carry out fuel economy rulemakings. It also would expand the
criteria that the agency takes into account in setting maximum feasible fuel economy for cars
and light trucks. The new criteria require NHTSA to consider occupant safety and
automotive industry employment in its determination of the maximum feasible fuel economy.
All but one of the CAFE amendments offered during the House debate on H.R. 6 were
defeated. The latter included an amendment to raise the CAFE standard for passenger
automobiles to 33 miles over ten years (177-254). Another concern about the CAFE program
has been that consumers have noted that in-use fuel economy rarely meets rated fuel
economy, despite an adjustment that is made to the fuel economy ratings that appear on
stickers posted to new cars. An amendment directing the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to weigh additional factors in this adjustment was approved (346-85). The version of
the energy bill reported to the Senate floor includes language only to provide NHTSA with
$2 million annually to conduct CAFE activities during each of FY2006-FY2010.
Interest has continued in studying whether the CAFE standards and program should be
restructured. Among the issues have been the definitions and regulations for passenger cars
and light duty trucks. Critics argue that the current system encourages manufacturers to
nudge larger passenger vehicles into the light truck category and penalizes manufacturers
who serve the market for the heavier vehicles in the light truck category. One bill introduced
in the House (H.R. 705) would require that standards gradually apply to vehicles up to
10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW). Basing CAFE on vehicle attributes was offered
as another policy option. NHTSA has the latitude to make changes in the CAFE program,
and one report at the end of March 2005 indicated that NHTSA was close to issuing a
rulemaking making changes to the structure of the CAFE program. An amendment on the
floor that would have required a reduction in U.S. oil demand by 1 million barrels below
projected demand in 2013 was defeated (166-262). Though similar language was added to
the Senate version of the energy legislation in the 108th Congress, and while it would have
extended latitude to the President to use any means to achieve the goal, critics argued that
it would compel an increase in CAFE standards.
However, the provision was added to the bill approved by the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, with a target year of 2015 to achieve the one million barrels
per day savings. On June 16, during the debate on the bill, an amendment offered by Senator
Cantwell that would have further required a 40% reduction in oil imports (7.6 mbd) by 2025
4 National Commission on Energy Policy, Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to
Meet America’s Energy Challenges, December 2004. See [http://www.energycommission.org/
ewebeditpro/items/O82F4682.pdf].
CRS-10

---

IB10143
06-20-05
was rejected (47-53). While the benefit to energy security is clear were such a reduction
achieved, one concern about the amendment was that meeting the goal would be highly likely
to require a stiff increase in CAFE. (For additional information, see CRS Issue Brief
IB90122, Automobile and Light Truck Fuel Economy: The CAFE Standards, by Robert
Bamberger.)
Renewable Energy and Fuels. Policymakers have debated for a number of years
the role that renewable fuels might play in displacing U.S. oil consumption. Skeptics have
argued that the production of some renewable fuels will consume more energy than will be
produced. However, others argue that the nation needs to develop alternative fuels and that
the economics and energy intensity of producing these fuels will become competitive once
a market for renewables can be established.
As noted above (see “Ethanol and MTBE”), a major feature of the energy bills of the
108th Congress was a requirement that an increasing amount of gasoline contain renewable
fuels such as ethanol. An amendment to H.R. 6 agreed to on the floor of the House would
authorize $300 million annually during MY2006-MY2015 to encourage production of
advanced diesel and hybrid vehicles and to provide consumer incentives for their purchase.
The program would be subject to appropriated funds. Another amendment that was approved
(239-190) would expand the types of renewable fuels under other provisions in H.R. 6 that
would qualify for grants for the construction of production facilities. For a discussion of
previously enacted tax cuts relating to renewables and alternative fuel, see the section on
energy tax policy below.
For retail electricity suppliers, a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) sets a minimum
requirement (often a percentage) for electricity production from renewable energy resources
or for the purchase of tradable credits that represent an equivalent amount of production.
In the 109th Congress, two bills (H.R. 983 and S. 427) would establish an RPS. The Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on RPS on March 8, 2005.
Regional differences in the availability of renewable resources, particularly resource
availability in the southeastern United States, were a key issue at the hearing. In its markup
of the energy legislation on April 12, 2005, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
rejected an amendment to add an RPS (1% in 2008, increasing by 1% annually through
2027)(17-30).
On June 16 the Senate adopted an amendment by Senator Bingaman mandating a
federal RPS, which would require investor-owned utilities to generate at least 10% of their
electricity from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, or new
hydroelectric facilities, by 2020. The vote was 52-48. Proponents noted a growing number
of states with an RPS and argued that an RPS could reduce electricity bills. Opponents
raised concerns about the exclusion of existing hydropower facilities and resource limits for
the southeastern United States. (For information on renewable energy and fuels proposals in
the 109th Congress, see CRS Report RL32860, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Legislation in the 109th Congress, and CRS Issue Brief IB10041, Renewable Energy: Tax
Credit, Budget and Electricity Production Issues, by Fred Sissine.)
Energy Efficiency and Conservation. Over the years that energy policy has been
debated, some have argued that improvements in the efficiency of energy use could reduce
demand sufficiently to eliminate the pressure to discover new reserves of conventional fuels
CRS-11

---

IB10143
06-20-05
and to build more electric generation and transmission facilities. Energy efficiency is
increased when an energy conversion device, such as a household appliance, automobile
engine, or steam turbine, undergoes a technical change that enables it to provide the same
service (lighting, heating, motor drive) while using less energy. The energy-saving result of
the efficiency improvement is often called “energy conservation.” The energy efficiency of
buildings can be improved through the use of certain materials such as attic insulation,
components such as insulated windows, and design aspects such as solar orientation and
shade tree landscaping. Further, the energy efficiency of communities and cities can be
improved through architectural design, transportation system design, and land use planning.
Thus, energy efficiency involves all aspects of energy production, distribution, and end-use.
Energy efficiency and conservation issues have continued to be part of the debate over
comprehensive energy legislation in the 109th Congress. H.R. 6, as passed by the House on
April 21, 2005, would reauthorize many programs, would set a new goal for reducing federal
facilities’ energy use, would extend Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC), would
establish several standards for products and equipment, and could terminate cogeneration
purchase requirements. Overall, many of the non-tax energy efficiency provisions in H.R. 6
are similar to the comprehensive bill considered in the 108th Congress. H.R. 6 also includes
language that would provide a total of $8.1 billion in energy tax incentives, including $397
million in tax credits for energy efficiency. The bill would also provide an $18 million
residential solar tax credit. However, critics of the bill argue that, to achieve the goal of
reducing the cost of the measure, provisions favoring conventional fossil fuel production
have been retained while many incentives to promote conservation and efficiency were
dropped. (For more information, see CRS Report RL32860, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Legislation in the 109th Congress, and CRS Issue Brief IB10020, Budget,
Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine).

Energy Tax Policy. Some argue that the historical volatility of energy prices has
been a disincentive to make investments in new energy-related technologies and
infrastructure that might boost production of conventional fuels and encourage homeowners,
for example, to invest in systems that would reduce energy consumption for heating, cooling,
and water heating. Tax policy has been one option to encourage both supply and demand-
reduction efforts.
The energy tax provisions of H.R. 6 (109th Congress) as passed by the House include
an $8.1 billion, 11-year tax reduction of energy taxes, weighed almost entirely toward fossil
fuels and electricity. The Senate Finance Committee June 16 approved a $14.1 billion,
11-year tax title aimed less toward fossil fuel production and more toward energy
conservation and alternative fuels than the House measure.5 (For more information, see CRS
Issue Brief IB10054, Energy Tax Policy, by Salvatore Lazzari.)
The President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. Demand for hybrid vehicles that can
operate on both gasoline and electric power has been strong. More hybrid models are
scheduled to be introduced in the coming years. However, some see the hybrid vehicle as
5 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation, Estimated Revenue Effects of the Chairman’s
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to the “Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act of 2005,” JCX-
47-05, June 16, 2005.
CRS-12

---

IB10143
06-20-05
a “bridging” technology until research and development produces an economically practical
fleet of hydrogen vehicles, and an infrastructure for fueling them.
In January 2003 President Bush announced a new research and development initiative
for hydrogen as a transportation fuel. A goal of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, and previously
established FreedomCAR initiative, is to produce hydrogen-fueled engine systems by 2015
that achieve double to triple the efficiency of today’s conventional engines at a cost
competitive with conventional engines.
Over five years, the Administration is seeking a total funding increase of $720 million.
These initiatives would fund research on hydrogen fuel and fuel cells for transportation and
stationary applications. The 108th Congress for FY2004 appropriated approximately $50
million for the initiatives ($20 million less than the Administration request) above the
FY2003 level, and for FY2005 an additional $25 million above the FY2004 level. The
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6) would authorize $4 billion during the period FY2006-
FY2010. The comprehensive legislation in the 108th Congress would have set goals for the
production of hydrogen-fueled passenger vehicles. No goals are included in H.R. 6.
Critics of the Administration initiative suggested that the hydrogen program was
intended to forestall attempts to significantly raise vehicle CAFE standards, and that it
relieves the automotive industry of assuming more initiative in pursuing technological
innovations. In addition, they argue that hydrogen-fueled vehicles may ultimately be
infeasible, and that attention and funding should be focused on other research areas. On the
other hand, supporters argue that it is appropriate for government to become involved in the
development of technologies that are too financially risky to draw private sector investment.
At issue for these policymakers will be whether the federal initiative and level of funding is
aggressive enough. (For additional information, see CRS Report RS21442, Hydrogen and
Fuel Cell R&D: FreedomCAR and the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.)
Nuclear Energy. Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act nuclear liability system
has been one of the top nuclear items on the energy agenda. Under Price-Anderson,
commercial reactor accident damages would be 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 $10.9 billion. Price-Anderson also
authorizes the Department of Energy (DOE) to indemnify its nuclear contractors.
Authorization of the system for new commercial reactors ran out at the end of 2003, but it
continues in place for existing reactors. Congress in the FY2005 Defense Authorization Act
(P.L. 108-375) reauthorized the act for DOE contractors through 2006. H.R. 6 as passed by
the House would extend the authorization of Price-Anderson for both commercial plants and
DOE contractors through 2025, as does the Senate version of H.R. 6.
Several provisions dealing with security at nuclear power plants were also included in
the House-passed bill. One measure would authorize Nuclear Regulatory Commission
licensees, including guards at nuclear plants, to carry weapons, preempting some state
restrictions. Another would require fingerprinting of nuclear plant workers for criminal
background checks.
Another provision authorizes $1.3 billion for the design and construction of nuclear-
hydrogen cogeneration projects at the Idaho National Laboratory and at existing reactors.
CRS-13

---

IB10143
06-20-05
The purpose would be to explore production of hydrogen fuel from nuclear energy.
Currently, natural gas is the main source for hydrogen fuel. The bill approved by the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee includes a similar authorization. The Senate
version of H.R. 6 would also make advanced nuclear power plants eligible for federal loan
guarantees, and the title being marked up by the Finance Committee would provide a tax
credit for nuclear power production. (For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB88090,
Nuclear Energy Policy.)
LEGISLATION
H.R. 6 (Barton)
Energy Policy Act of 2005. Introduced April 18, 2005. Among other provisions, the bill
would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to exploration and
development, includes a “safe harbor” provision to protect methyl tertiary-butyl ether
(MTBE) refiners from product liability suits, would establish a “refinery revitalization”
program, and would permit the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to decide
on the siting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. Passed by the House on April 21, 2005
(249-183).

H.R. 610 (Biggert)
A bill to provide for federal energy research, development, demonstration, and
commercial application activities, and for other purposes. Would authorize roughly $44.1
billion over five years for research of deep sea drilling, clean coal technology, nuclear
energy, fusion technology, and high-performance computers. Would authorize funding to
improve energy efficiency of vehicles and buildings. Introduced February 8, 2005, and
referred to several House committees. Reported favorably by voice vote from the Committee
on Science, February 10, 2005.
H.R. 705 (Gilchrist)
Automobile Fuel Economy Act of 2005. To amend Title 49, United States Code, to
require phased increases in the fuel efficiency standards applicable to light trucks; to require
fuel economy standards for automobiles of up to 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; to
increase the fuel economy of the federal fleet of vehicles, and for other purposes. Introduced
February 9, 2005, and referred to House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
H.R. 1103 (Johnson)
Fuel Efficiency Truth in Advertising Act of 2005. Would direct EPA to update its test
procedures for light-duty vehicles for the purpose of calculating vehicle fuel economy.
Introduced March 3, 2005, and referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 1541 (Thomas)
Enhanced Energy Infrastructure and Technology Tax Act. To amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to enhance energy infrastructure properties in the United States and
to encourage the use of certain energy technologies, and for other purposes. Introduced April
12, 2005. Ordered to be reported (26-11), April 13, 2005.
CRS-14

---

IB10143
06-20-05
S. 10 (Domenici)
Energy Policy Act of 2005. Includes provisions on electricity regulation and reliability,
energy research and development, alternative fuels, and energy access to public lands.
Introduced as an original bill and reported June 9, 2005, by the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources (S.Rept. 109-78). Ordered reported May 26 by a vote of 21-1. Text
substituted for H.R. 6 June 14.
H.R. 6 (Tauzin) [108th Congress]
Enhances energy conservation and research and development, provides for security and
diversity in the energy supply for the American people, and for other purposes. Introduced
April 7, 2003. Passed House (247-175) April 11, 2003. Senate version passed (84-14) July
31, 2003. Reported from conference, November 17, 2003. Passed House (246-180)
November 19, 2003. Motion to invoke cloture failed in the Senate (57-40), November 21,
2003.
CRS-15

---