|
UPDATE: Energy Policy Act of 2005 By Patrick Meyer Thursday, 30 June 2005 – Despite previous uncertainties, the Senate showed its overwhelming support for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by passing the bill 85-12 on Tuesday, 28 June. With emphasis on bipartisan cooperation, the Senate was able to push through a version of the bill that stresses job creation, renewable energy development, tax incentives, and electricity market reform. Let’s take a look back to the major events occurring since the beginning of Senate debate two weeks ago. On 14 June, Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M., mustered up enough support to include an amendment that will require refineries to annually blend 8 billion gallons of biofuels into gasoline by 2012. These biofuels will primarily compose of corn-based ethanol, causing an increase in corn demand in the Midwest. Regardless of Senate support, critics quickly contested that the ethanol boost will drive up the cost of gasoline due to increased shipping costs.
In a major win for Democrats, the Senate voted 52-48 on 16 June to include an amendment requiring a mandatory nation-wide Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Under the amendment, all utilities under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will be required to generate at least 10 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. The renewable energy will come from wind, solar, geothermal and other (including wave, tidal, and biomass) sources, ultimately promoting energy independence and reducing nationwide emissions. The passing of the amendment has come under heavy criticism; many experts agree that it will be technically impossible for some states to meet the 10 percent requirement.
Also on 16 June, the Senate Finance Committee approved a package of energy tax breaks with a total cost of $14.1 billion over 11 years. $8.3 billion of that total is devoted to electricity infrastructure rehaul; $2.8 billion to domestic fossil fuel production; and $2.7 billion to alternative fuel vehicles. On Wednesday, 22 June, in a major blow to environmental advocates, the Senate rejected an amendment that would have created mandatory greenhouse gas reductions. Proposed by Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and John McCain, R-Ariz., and defeated 38-60, the amendment would have capped greenhouse gas emissions at 2000 levels by 2010. Lieberman and McCain are in agreement that they lost the support of key voters by including nuclear power provisions in the amendment, which were heavily criticized by some environmental groups. With the amendments set or rejected by Friday, 25 June, the general feeling was that the Senate had pounded out a solid, bipartisan bill that had a great chance of being passed on the floor. Hopes turned concrete on Tuesday, 28 June when the Senate voted 85-12 to pass the bill, setting up a conference with the House. Congress is now faced with several major issues on which the Senate and House disagree that must be tacked in conference.
When it comes to the application of appropriations, the bills differ tremendously. The Senate version includes the above mentioned $14 billion tax package, which devotes credits for alternative and renewable energy sources. The House version, however, includes only an $8 billion package focusing on traditional fossil fuel and nuclear sources. Additionally, the Senate version requires a 1 million gallon oil reduction by 2015 and the House version has no reduction requirements. These are just some of the many issues that will be tackled in conference. Regardless of the impending conflict, Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, ranking Democrat on the Energy Committee, insists that all is well. On 28 June he asserted that the Senators are "going into conference with a good piece of legislation." The Speaker of the House will appoint his conferees and the Senate body will elect theirs. Each side will likely fight persistently for their respective chamber’s version of the bill – but while keeping in mind that it is now in the interest of both chambers to meet the President’s deadline of 1 August. In the meantime, check back here for regular updates regarding the bill’s status. About the Author:
Patrick Meyer holds a Bachelors of Science degree in Public Policy with a concentration in Energy Policy from the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT). He is currently working as a summer 2005 intern with IEEE-USA's Energy Policy Committee. As part of the internship, he will be attending all energy-, electricity-, and resource-related hearings on Capitol Hill and will provide summaries of each hearing on this website. Patrick will be returning to RIT in September to obtain his Masters of Science in Science, Technology, and Public Policy. | Top of Page | Electric Reliability | Priority Issues | Policy | Legislative Action Center | IEEE-USA | Last Updated: 22 July 2005 |
Two days later, on 16 June, the Senate rejected 47-53 an amendment by Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that would have reduced projected oil imports in 2025 by 40 percent. Primarily defeated by Republicans, their main argument against the amendment was that it would have caused unrealistic increases in vehicle fuel efficiency standards.
Some of the issues likely to rise in conference include the Senate’s inclusion of a provision that calls for an oil and natural gas inventory of federal offshore areas – whereas the House has included no such provision. The Senate version makes no mention of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge while the House version would allow the secretary of the Interior to hold a lease sale in a portion of the reserve. The Senate version includes an ethanol mandate of 8 billion gallons per year by 2012 and the House version calls for only 5 billion gallons per year by the same year. The House version protects MTBE makers from most product liability lawsuits, but the Senate version does not.