CRS Compares House and Senate Energy Bills
AUG. 20, 2007
RL34135
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
- AuthorsSissine, Fred
- Institutional AuthorsCongressional Research Service
- Subject Area/Tax Topics
- Jurisdictions
- LanguageEnglish
- Tax Analysts Document NumberDoc 2007-19439
- Tax Analysts Electronic Citation2007 TNT 164-19
Citations: RL34135
Order Code RL34135
August 20, 2007
Fred Sissine, Coordinator
Specialist in Energy Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Omnibus Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Legislation: A Comparison of Major Provisions in
House-Passed H.R. 3221 with Senate-Passed H.R. 6
Summary
In the first session of the 110th Congress, the House and the Senate passed two markedly different versions of omnibus energy efficiency and renewable energy legislation. This report compares major provisions in House-passed H.R. 3221 and Senate-passed H.R. 6. Key legislative challenges remain. First, there are significant differences between the two bills. Second, because the House and Senate have passed different measures, further action will be required in at least one chamber before a conference committee could be arranged. Third, concerns about certain oil and natural gas provisions, and the lack of measures to support increased oil and gas production, have led the Administration to threaten to veto each bill. Highlights of major provisions include:
Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). The Senate bill would set a modified standard that starts at 8.5 billion gallons in 2008 and rises to 36 billion gallons by 2022. The House bill has no RFS provision.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). The Senate bill would set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020. The House bill has no CAFE provision.
Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS). The House bill would set a minimum standard that would start at 2.75% in 2010 and rise steadily to a peak of 15% in 2020. The Senate bill has no RPS provision.
Offshore Oil and Gas Royalties. The House bill would establish royalties, or alternative payments, for certain federal leases established in 1998 and 1999. The Senate bill has no provision.
Repeal of Oil and Gas Tax Incentives. The House bill would obtain tax revenue offsets by reducing subsidies for oil and natural gas production. The Senate bill has no provision.
Renewable Energy Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC). The House bill would extend the PTC for four years, and expand it to include some additional resources. The Senate bill has no provision.
Other Tax Incentives. The House bill would extend several investment tax credits covering solar energy and energy efficiency in residential and commercial sectors. The Senate bill has no provision.
Energy Efficiency Equipment Standards. Key differences involve standards for residential refrigerators, freezers, refrigerator-freezers, metal halide lamps, and commercial walk-in coolers and freezers.
Loan Guarantees. The House bill would give new loan authority to a wider variety of projects. The Senate bill would prevent appropriations acts from limiting the use of non-appropriated funds.
Contents
Introduction
Senate Action on H.R. 6
House Action on H.R. 3221
Challenges and Next Steps
Comparing the House and Senate Bills
List of Tables
Table 1. List of Provisions
Table 2. Comparison of House-Passed H.R. 3321 and Senate-Passed H.R. 6
Omnibus Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Legislation:
A Comparison of Major Provisions in House-Passed H.R. 3221
with Senate-Passed H.R. 6
Introduction
In the first session of the 110th Congress, the House and the Senate passed two markedly different versions of omnibus energy efficiency and renewable energy legislation.
The Senate version of H.R. 6, the proposed Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, passed the Senate on June 21, 2007. The key provisions of the Senate-passed H.R. 6 are appliance efficiency standards, an increase of the renewable fuel standard (RFS) to 36 billion gallons by 2022, and an increase of the combined corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards to 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2020. Tax provisions and a renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS) were not included.
The House passed H.R. 3221 on August 4, 2007. H.R. 3221 has two divisions. Division A contains the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act, which has nine titles An adopted floor amendment (H.Amdt. 748) added a 15% renewable portfolio standard (RPS). Division B, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007, contains the House-approved version of H.R. 2776. It adds four titles to H.R. 3221 that include a four-year extension of the renewable electricity production tax credit and other efficiency and renewables incentives.
This report compares the major provisions of the House version of H.R. 3221, and the Senate version of H.R. 6. (For more details on the legislation that led to the omnibus bills, see CRS Report RL33831, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Legislation in the 110th Congress. For more details on the tax provisions, see CRS Report RL33578, Energy Tax Policy: History and Current Issues.)
The following analysts in the CRS Resources, Science, and Industry Division contributed to this report:
Amy Abel, transmission and electric utilities, 7-7239
Robert Bamberger, fuel economy standards, 7-7240
Lynne Corn, wildlife and habitats, 7-7267
Susan Fletcher, international climate cooperation, 7-7231
Peter Folger, carbon storage, 7-1517
Mark Holt, loan guarantees, 7-1704
Marc Humphries, oil and natural gas royalties, 7-7264
Nic Lane, marine energy, 7-7905
Salvatore Lazzari, energy taxes, 7-7825
Robert Pirog, energy prices, 7-6847
Randy Schnepf, agriculture-based energy, 7-4277
Brent Yacobucci, biofuels, 7-9662
Senate Action on H.R. 6
The Senate version of H.R. 6, the proposed Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, was derived primarily from S. 1419, which, in turn, was composed from four major bills: the Energy Savings Act (S. 1321), the Public Buildings Cost Reduction Act (S. 992), the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act (S. 357), and the Energy Diplomacy and Security Act (S. 193). A summary of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 6 is presented in CRS Report RL33831. That report also contains descriptions of all the bills that composed the Senate version of H.R. 6.
An RPS amendment (S.Amdt. 1537) was introduced during Senate floor action on the proposed substitute (S.Amdt. 1502) to H.R. 6. The RPS amendment proposed setting a target of 15% by 2020. No action was taken on S.Amdt. 1537 before a successful cloture vote on the substitute. That cloture vote caused S.Amdt. 1537 to be ruled non-germane, and it fell from consideration.
A package of tax provisions (S.Amdt. 1704) was considered during Senate floor action on the proposed substitute to H.R. 6. The proposed tax package amendment included oil and natural gas revenue offset provisions, as well as incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency. The proposed revenue offsets were similar to, but more extensive than, the offsets proposed in Title XIII, Subtitle A, of H.R. 3221. However, S.Amdt. 1704 failed by a vote of 57-36 on a cloture motion to limit debate. (For more details, see CRS Report RL33578, Energy Tax Policy: History and Current Issues.)
House Action on H.R. 3221
H.R. 3221 has two divisions. Division A contains the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act, which has nine titles that represent the integration of H.R. 364, H.R. 2304, H.R. 2313, H.R. 2337, H.R. 2389, H.R. 2420, H.R. 2635, H.R. 2701, H.R. 2773, H.R. 2774, H.R. 2847, and a draft bill by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Division B, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007, contains the House-approved version of H.R. 2776, and adds four titles to H.R. 3221. A summary of the bill is presented in CRS Report RL33831, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Legislation in the 110th Congress. That report also contains descriptions of all the bills that composed the House-passed version of H.R. 3221.
Challenges and Next Steps
One challenge involves key differences between the provisions of the two bills. There are several provisions where the two bills are very similar. One example is energy efficiency standards, where the House and Senate provisions have more similarities than differences. However, especially among the more controversial provisions, many either have major differences or the provision appears only in one bill. One key challenge will be to resolve such differences.
A second challenge involves additional action that will be required to get a bill to conference committee. Because the House and Senate have passed different measures, constitutionally-required congressional procedures prevent the two bills (H.R. 3221 and H.R. 6) from going to conference in their current form. Further action will be needed on at least one of the two bills in at least one of the two chambers. For example, one option could be that the Senate takes up H.R. 3221, amends it however it wishes, and then pass the bill as the Senate version of H.R. 3221. Then, a conference could be held to resolve any remaining differences between the two versions of H.R. 3221.1
A third challenge involves opposition to the bills expressed by the Administration. In a June 12, 2007, Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 6, the Administration expressed several points of opposition to the Senate bill.2 Its primary concerns involved issues related to oil and natural gas. The Administration stated that the bill "does nothing to increase domestic supplies of oil and natural gas." Moreover, it threatened to veto the bill if it retained a price gouging provision, which it feels would lead to problematic gasoline price controls. Another veto threat was focused on the proposal to subject foreign oil cartels to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Additional concerns were identified. One concern focused on the explicit 35 mpg fuel economy target in the CAFE provision and the proposal to set standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. For the RFS provision, the Administration strongly urged expansion to include fossil-based alternative fuels. Regarding loan guarantees, the Administration stated opposition to loosening of controls over program size and "special" treatment that would allow guarantees for biofuels projects to be increased to from 80% to cover up to 100% of project costs.
In an August 3, 2007, Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2776 and H.R. 3221, the Administration expressed several points of opposition to the House bill.3 Its primary concerns were focused on oil and natural gas. It stated that because the two bills "would lead to less domestic oil and gas production, higher energy costs, and higher taxes, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto these bills." Other concerns included the proposed repeal of the manufacturing tax deduction for the oil and gas industry, the application of royalty requirements for certain offshore oil and gas leases issued in 1998 and 1999, increased authorization for clean renewable energy bonds, and expansion of the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements.
Comparing the House and Senate Bills
This report compares the major provisions of the House-passed version of H.R. 3221 and the Senate-passed version of H.R. 6. Table 1 shows a list of the major provisions that are reviewed in this report. Some provisions are contained wholly under one title or subtitle. For example, the RPS provision in the House bill is contained wholly under Subtitle H of Title IX. However, some provisions are scattered throughout several titles or subtitles. For example, in the House bill, the most extensive provision for loan guarantees is found in Title IX, Subtitle C, but additional provisions for loan guarantees appear under Titles IV (Subtitle E), V, IX (Subtitle A) and IX (Subtitle E). Similarly, Senate provisions for loan guarantees appear in both Title I (Subtitle B), and Title II (Subtitle C).
Table 1. List of Provisions
Provision Category Page
1 Renewable Fuel Standard regulation 6
2 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulation 7
3 Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) regulation 8
4 Royalties Under Offshore Oil and Gas Leases regulation 9
5 Repeal of Oil and Natural Gas Tax Incentives tax incentives 10
6 Renewable Energy Production Tax Credits tax incentives 12
7 Transportation Tax Incentives tax incentives 13
8 Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives tax incentives 13
9 Energy Efficiency -- Equipment Standards regulation 14
10 Loan Guarantees loans 15
11 Energy Efficiency -- Federal regulation 16
12 Energy Efficiency -- Congressional regulation 17
13 Energy Efficiency -- Vehicle Transportation authorization 17
14 Renewable Fuel Infrastructure authorization 18
15 Rail, Sea, and Air Transportation authorization 19
16 International Energy Cooperation treaties 20
17 International Climate Cooperation treaties 21
18 Carbon Storage authorization 22
19 Carbon Neutral Government authorization 23
20 Energy Efficiency -- Buildings authorization 23
21 Energy Efficiency -- State and Local authorization 24
22 Energy Efficiency -- Small Business authorization 24
23 Green Jobs authorization 24
24 Transmission/Smart Grid authorization 25
25 Wind Impacts on Wildlife regulation 25
26 Renewable Energy R&D authorization 26
27 Hydrogen Award authorization 26
28 Price Gouging regulation 26
29 Agriculture Energy authorization 27
30 ARPA-E authorization 27
Table 2. Comparison of House-Passed H.R. 3321 and
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)
House-Passed H.R. 3221
No provision.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
Title I, Subtitle A. This Subtitle would extend and increase the
renewable fuel standard (RFS) set by P.L. 109-58. The RFS requires
minimum annual levels of renewable fuel in gasoline. The current
standard is 4.7 billion gallons for 2007. The modified standard would
start at 8.5 billion gallons in 2008 and rise to 36 billion gallons
in 2022. Starting in 2016, an increasing portion of the requirement
would have to be met with advanced biofuels, defined as cellulosic
ethanol and other biofuels derived from feedstocks other than corn
starch. Renewable fuels produced from new biorefineries would be
required to achieve at least a 20% reduction in life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions relative to life cycle emissions from gasoline. A
voluntary labeling program would be established for renewable fuels,
based on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions. Fuel produced from
biorefineries that displace more than 90% of the fossil fuels used in
a biofuel production facility would qualify for additional credits
under the RFS. (For more details, see CRS Report RL33928, Ethanol
and Biofuels: Agriculture, Infrastructure, and Market Constraints
Related to Expanded Production.)
Key Differences
No House provision.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
House-Passed H.R. 3221
No provision.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
Title V would establish a single CAFE standard for a combined
passenger car and light truck fleet, beginning in model year (MY)
2011. The existing standard is 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) for
passenger cars and 22.2 mpg for light trucks in MY2007. H.R. 6 would
set a CAFE target of 35 mpg for the combined fleet by MY2020. The
CAFE standards during each of the interim years (MY2011-MY2019) would
be required to be 4% higher than the previous model year, or at
"maximum feasible" levels. Within 18 months after enactment, the
Department of Transportation (DOT) would be required to initiate
analysis for the purpose of establishing a commercial medium- and
heavy-duty on-highway vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program.
Other provisions would require that a percentage of automakers' new
vehicles be alternative fuel-capable starting in 2012, and that CAFE
fines be used to develop alternative fuel infrastructure. (For
additional information, see CRS Report RL39982, Corporate Average
Fuel Economy (CAFE): A Comparison of Selected Legislation in the
110th Congress, and CRS Report RL33413, Automobile and Light
Truck Fuel Economy: The CAFE Standards.)
Key Differences
No House provision.
Federal Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS)
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title IX, Subtitle H, would establish an RPS administered by DOE for
retail suppliers (electric utilities). For each retail supplier that
sells more than one billion kilowatt-hours (kwh) per year, the RPS
would set a minimum electricity production requirement from renewable
resources. The standard would start at 2.75% in 2010 and then rise
annually until reaching a peak of 15% in 2020. Electricity savings
from energy efficiency measures would be allowed to compose a maximum
of 25% of the standard in any given year. The energy efficiency share
would rise to a peak of 4% in 2020, of the 15% total. (For more
details, see CRS Report RL34116 Renewable Energy Portfolio
Standard.)
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
In Senate floor action on its proposed substitute (S.Amdt. 1502) to
H.R. 6, S.Amdt. 1537 to the substitute proposed adding an RPS with a
target of reaching 15% by 2020. After a successful cloture motion on
S.Amdt. 1502, S.Amdt. 1537 was ruled non-germane.
Key Differences
No Senate provision.
Royalties Under Offshore Oil and Gas Leases
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title VII, Subtitle E, would require that the Secretary of the
Interior accept a lessee's request to modify certain leases
established in 1998 and 1999 without price thresholds ("covered
leases") to set price thresholds. Lessees holding "covered leases"
would not be eligible for new oil and gas leases in the Gulf of
Mexico unless the covered leases are modified to include price
thresholds or the lessee would agree to pay a newly established
"conservation of resources fee." The Subtitle would repeal royalty
relief provisions established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L.
109-58, § 344 and § 345). This Subtitle is nearly identical
to Title II of the House-passed version of H.R. 6. The Congressional
Budget Office estimates that the proposed changes to the royalty
system for oil and natural gas could generate $6.3 billion over 10
years for the U.S. Treasury.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
No provision.
Key Differences
No Senate provision.
Repeal of Oil and Natural Gas Tax Incentives
Title XIII, Subtitle A, proposes tax revenue offsets that would be
obtained by reducing subsidies for oil and natural gas production.
Section 13001 would repeal the IRS § 199 domestic manufacturing
deduction for oil and gas companies starting in 2008. (Note: In 2007,
this deduction would amount to about 6% of the income from domestic
production of oil, gas, or primary products.)
Under Section 13002, the geological and geophysical costs (G&G) of a
major integrated oil company would be amortized (deducted
proportionally) over a 7 year period instead of the current 5 years.
(Note: A major integrated oil company is one with an average world
production of at least 500,000 barrels per day, with 2005 gross
receipts exceeding $1 billion, and which has at least a 15% interest
in refinery operations.)
Section 13003 would restrict oil and gas companies from claiming
foreign tax credits by changing the method used to calculate "Foreign
Oil and Gas Extraction Income."
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this Title would increase
revenue to the U.S. Treasury by about $11 billion over 10 years.
Title XIII, Subtitle B would clarify eligibility for the renewable
diesel tax credit.
Title XIV, Subtitle A, would call for a carbon audit of the IRS tax
code and for a comprehensive study of biofuels.
Subtitle B would require that, for a capital grant program to
rehabilitate freight railroad tracks, all laborers and mechanics be
paid at the "prevailing wage" rate.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
No provisions.
However, in Senate floor action on its proposed substitute (S.Amdt.
1502) to H.R. 6, S.Amdt. 1704 to the substitute proposed tax revenue
offsets that were similar to, but more extensive than, the offsets
proposed in Title XIII, Subtitle A of H.R. 3221. However, S.Amdt.
1704 failed by a vote of 57-36 on a cloture motion to limit debate.
(For more details, see CRS Report RL33578.)
No provision.
No comparable provisions in Senate bill, nor in S.Amdt. 1704, which
failed to be added to H.R. 6 on the Senate floor.
Key Differences
No Senate provision.
S.Amdt. 1704 had more revenue offsets than Title XIII, Subtitle A of
H.R. 3221. The estimated dollar value of the revenue offset
provisions in S.Amdt. 1704 was more than double that estimated for
H.R. 3221.
No Senate provision.
No Senate provisions.
Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy Production
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title XI would extend the renewable electricity production tax credit
(PTC) for 4 years and expand it to include ocean thermal and
hydrokinetic (wave, tide, and current) energy. Also, it would extend
the 30% business energy investment tax credit (ITC) for solar and
fuel cell equipment for 8 years, authorize $2 billion of clean
renewable energy bonds (CREBs), and remove the cap on the investment
tax credit for residential solar and fuel cell equipment.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
No provisions in H.R. 6.
However, S.Amdt. 1704 (Part I) would have extended the PTC for 5
years and expanded it to include ocean thermal and hydrokinetic
(wave, tide, and current) energy. Also, it would have extended the
30% business energy tax credit for solar and fuel cell equipment for
8 years and repealed the public utility exclusion. It would have
authorized $3.6 billion of CREBs, and raised the cap on the tax
credit for residential solar and fuel cell equipment. A new credit
would have been created for residential wind equipment. Two
incentives for electric transmission would have been established.
S.Amdt. 1704 (Part V) would have extended the new energy-efficient
homes credit for 3 years.
Key Differences
No Senate provisions, but:
S.Amdt. 1704 proposed a 1-year longer PTC extension than the House
bill.
S.Amdt. 1704 proposed $1.6 billion more for CREBs, and it would have
expanded the business ITC to utilities.
H.R. 3221 would remove the cap on the residential ITC.
S.Amdt. 1704 would have raised the cap on the residential ITC.
S.Amdt. 1704 would have created a credit for residential wind
equipment.
S.Amdt. 1704 (Part V) would have extended the new homes credit.
Tax Incentives for Energy Efficiency in Transportation
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title XII, Subtitle A, would set a $4,000 credit for plug-in hybrid
vehicles, establish a 50 cent per gallon production tax credit for
cellulosic ethanol fuel, extend the biodiesel production tax credit
for two years, increase the alternative refueling stations tax
credit, create a fringe benefit for bicycle commuters, and modify
depreciation and expensing rules to close a loophole for gas guzzlers
and make incentives available for fuel efficient vehicles.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
No provisions.
S.Amdt. 1704 would have created a credit for plug-in hybrids, capped
at $7,500 to $15,000, depending on vehicle weight. The credit for
alternative-fueled vehicles would have been extended for 2 years. An
exclusion from heavy truck tax would have been established for idling
reduction units and certain truck insulation measures.
Key Differences
No Senate provisions.
S.Amdt. 1704 had a stronger credit for plug-in hybrids.
H.R. 3221 provides some incentives that were not in S.Amdt. 1704.
Tax Incentives for Other Energy Efficiency Measures
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title XII, Subtitle B, includes a tax credit bond for community
programs to reduce greenhouse gases, a tax credit bond for states to
provide loans and grants for home improvements and residential
equipment, a 5-year extension of the tax deduction for commercial
buildings, an extension and modification of the appliance credit, and
the establishment of a five-year depreciation period for smart
electric meters.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
No provisions.
S.Amdt. 1704 (Part I) would have improved depreciation for energy
management devices. Part V would have extended the existing home
efficiency retrofit credit for 2 years, the new home credit for 3
years, the commercial building credit for 5 years, and the home
appliance credit would have been extended and expanded.
Key Differences
No Senate provisions.
H.R. 3221 would establish new tax credit bond provisions for
community and state programs.
Energy Efficiency -- Equipment Standards
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title IX, Subtitle A, Part 1, would set, by statute, new efficiency
standards for residential clothes washers, dishwashers,
dehumidifiers, refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers,
electric motors, and residential boilers. DOE would be allowed to
establish regional variations in standards for heating and air
conditioning equipment. DOE would be required to complete a
rulemaking process for furnace fans by 2013. Federal agencies would
be directed to purchase devices that limit standby power use. DOE
would be directed to issue a final rule that sets efficiency
standards for battery chargers. Certain energy efficiency measures
for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers would be set by legislation.
Also, several procedural changes would be made to expedite the DOE
rulemaking process.
Part 2 would set a mandatory target for lighting efficiency, set a
standard for incandescent reflector lamps, and require federal
agencies to replace incandescent lights with more efficient ones.
Energy efficiency standards would be set by legislation for metal
halide lamp fixtures designed to be operated with lamps rated between
150 watts and 500 watts.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
Title II, Subtitle B, would set, by statute, new standards for
residential boilers, electric motors, and some home appliances. DOE
would be directed to set standards by rulemaking for furnace fans.
Also, DOE would be allowed to set standards for multiple components
and regional standards for heating and cooling equipment. Further,
this Subtitle would provide incentives for the manufacture of
high-efficiency consumer products. Other provisions would expedite
rulemakings, clarify limits to federal preemption of state standards,
and require Energy Guide labels for several types of consumer
electronic products. Also, DOE would be directed to establish a
program for the use of new technologies to improve energy efficiency
in materials manufacturing and energy-intensive industries.
Subtitle A would require all federal lighting to be Energy Star rated
by 2010, expanding efficiency standards for incandescent reflector
lamps, creating the "Bright Tomorrow" lighting prizes for solid state
(LED) lighting developments, and establishing a "Sense of the Senate"
to pass mandatory energy efficiency performance targets for lighting
products.
Key Differences
Both bills would legislate identical standards for residential
clothes washers, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, electric motors, and
residential boilers. The House bill would also legislate standards
for refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. The Senate
bill would direct DOE to set standards by rule for refrigerators,
freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. Both bills would direct DOE to
set standards by rule for furnace fans. The House bill would
legislate certain efficiency measures for walk-in coolers and
freezers.
Both bills would legislate identical standards for incandescent
reflector lamps. The House bill would also legislate standards for
certain metal halide lamps.
Loan Guarantees for Energy Facilities
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title IX, Subtitle C, would amend EPACT05 Title XVII to specify that
loan guarantees must be large enough to ensure financing for a
project (up to 80% of project costs), that DOE may not establish
regulations limiting guarantees to less than 100% of project debt,
and that workers on such projects must be paid prevailing wages under
the Davis-Bacon Act. In addition, appropriations bills could not
exclude any category of projects otherwise eligible for loan
guarantees under EPACT05. New loan guarantee authority would be
established for biofuel plants (Sec. 5003), rural renewable energy
systems (Sec. 5006), vessels for short sea transportation (Sec.
8401), advanced battery manufacturing facilities (Sec. 9401), and
green building retrofits (Sec. 9052).
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
Title I (Sec. 124) would amend EPACT05 Title XVII to specify that up
to 100% of a project's debt may be guaranteed and that the loan
guarantee program is not subject to annual limits established by
appropriations acts when non-appropriated funds are used. Loan
guarantee authority would be extended to renewable fuel facilities
(Sec. 124) and production facilities for fuel efficient vehicles or
parts (Sec. 242).
Key Differences
The Senate bill specifies that annual limits in appropriations acts
would not apply to loan guarantees using non-appropriated funds
(using funds provided by project sponsors, as authorized by EPACT05).
This provision is considered important for nuclear power plants,
which tend to be far more expensive than other advanced energy
projects. The House bill would help nuclear power by prohibiting
appropriations acts from excluding any project categories (the
House-passed Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for
FY2008 (H.R. 2641) excludes nuclear plants). The House bill
establishes new loan guarantee authority for a wider variety of
projects than the Senate bill.
Energy Efficiency -- Federal
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title VI, Subtitle B, would require federal agencies to purchase "low
carbon" vehicles and to procure energy-efficient products. DOE would
be directed to revise energy performance standards for federal
buildings to reduce oil use. Covered buildings would have to reduce
the share of fossil fuel use by 55% in 2010, reducing steadily to
100% (zero emissions) by 2030. Subtitle C would create a telework
(work from home) policy at federal agencies. Alterative fuels could
not be procured if greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions exceed those for
conventional petroleum fuels.
Title VIII, Subtitle F, would direct the General Services
Administration (GSA) to install a solar photovoltaic system at DOE
headquarters. Also, it would prohibit purchase of incandescent lights
for Coast Guard buildings.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
Title II, Subtitle E, would require federal and state fleets to
reduce oil use 30% by 2016. The renewable energy share of federal
energy purchases would increase to 15% by 2015. Federal agencies
would have permanent authority to use Energy-Saving Performance
Contracts (ESPCs). Federal buildings would be required to reduce
energy use 30% by 2015. Federal buildings would be required to reduce
fossil energy use by 50%.
Title IV, Subtitle A, would direct GSA to accelerate federal agency
use of efficient lights. Subtitle B would direct GSA to install a
solar photovoltaic system at DOE headquarters.
Title IV, Subtitle C, would direct GSA to establish an Office of
High-Performance Green Buildings to encourage federal use of green
buildings, including agency retention of cost-savings. It would also
develop a standard to certify green buildings. The Office of Federal
Procurement Policy would be directed to require that acquisition,
construction, and major renovations of buildings employ green design.
In leasing, preference would be given to energy-efficient buildings.
Key Differences
Both bills would set a goal to reduce fossil fuel use in federal
vehicle fleets, but by using different approaches. The Senate bill
would also set a goal to reduce use by state fleets.
Both bills set goals for reducing fossil fuel use in federal
buildings. The House bill would drive this reduction with a DOE
rulemaking. The Senate bill sets a percentage target, but also calls
for establishment of a broader green buildings policy.
Energy Efficiency -- Congressional
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title VIII, Subtitle F, Part 3, would direct the Architect of the
Capitol to operate the Capitol Power Plant in an energy-efficient
manor, include energy efficiency measures in the Capitol Complex
Master Plan, and encourage the use of E85 fuel and solar photovoltaic
equipment.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
No provision.
Key Differences
No Senate provision.
Energy Efficiency -- Vehicle Transportation
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title VIII, Subtitle B, Part 2, provides support for federal-aid
highways. The federal share for congestion mitigation and air quality
(CMAQ) projects would be increased up to 100% of project or program
cost.
Title IX, Subtitle E would establish a loan guarantee program for
advanced battery development, grant programs for plug-in hybrid
vehicles, incentives for purchasing heavy duty hybrids for fleets,
and credits for various electric vehicles.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
Title II, Subtitle C, would promote high-efficiency vehicles,
advanced batteries, and energy storage. DOE would be authorized to
fund an R&D program on light-weight materials. A loan guarantee
program would be created for facilities that manufacture
fuel-efficient vehicles. Funding awards for qualified investments
would be authorized to refurbish manufacturing facilities that
produce advanced technology vehicles. A 10-year R&D program would be
authorized to support U.S. competitiveness in global energy storage
markets, and a five-year R&D program would be authorized for electric
drive technologies. DOE would be directed to establish a competitive
grant program for state, regional, and local government entities to
demonstrate electric drive vehicles. DOE would also be required to
establish a program to deploy technologies that would achieve
near-term oil savings in the transportation sector.
Key Differences
The bills have similar aims, but differ in focus and means. Both
bills would establish grant programs. The House bill would provide
loan guarantees and grants to support advanced technology work and
hybrid vehicle purchases. The Senate bill would rely more on R&D and
less on loan guarantees. The Senate bill has a broader scope,
including loan guarantees for constructing or retrofitting facilities
that manufacture fuel-efficient vehicles.
Renewable Fuel Supply and Infrastructure
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title V (§ 5003) would provide loan guarantees for up to 90%
($250 million in principal) of project cost for biorefineries and
biofuel production plants.
Title IX (§ 9304) would direct DOE to study the feasibility of
constructing dedicated ethanol pipelines.
Title IV (§ 9301) would authorize funding for DOE to make grants
for renewable fueling infrastructure. Additional provisions (§
4403, Title IX-D) would support other aspects of infrastructure
development.
Title IX (§ 9308) would authorize DOE funding support for grants
to diversify feedstocks and locations for cellulosic ethanol
production facilities.
Other provisions would authorize funding for R&D, bioenergy research
centers (5), and a biodiesel fuel quality standard.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
Title I (§ 124) would provide loan guarantees for up to 100%
($250 million in principal) of project cost for advanced biofuel (new
technology) pilot plants.
Title I (§ 143) would direct DOE to study the feasibility of
constructing dedicated ethanol pipelines.
Title I (§ 121) would authorize funding for DOE to make grants
for renewable fueling infrastructure and corridors in 10
geographically-dispersed areas.
Other provisions would authorize funding for R&D, bioenergy research
centers (11), grants to states with low ethanol production rates,
biomass transportation, a fuel labeling requirement, and a biodiesel
fuel quality standard.
Key Differences
The House bill would authorize funding for grants to support
cellulosic ethanol production, but the Senate bill would not.
The Senate bill would authorize funding for grants to states with low
ethanol production rates, but the House bill would not. The Senate
bill would create a fuel labeling requirement, and the House bill
would not.
Rail, Sea, and Air Transportation
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title VIII, Subtitle B, would direct DOT to establish grants that can
help rail carriers buy hybrid locomotives and grants that can improve
railroad track. Subtitle D would create a short sea maritime
transportation program. Subtitle E would establish a grant program to
reduce airport noise, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
No provisions.
Key Differences
No Senate provisions.
International Energy Cooperation
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title IX, Subtitle D, Part 2, would establish a grant program and
advisory board for U.S.-Israel energy cooperation. The provisions of
this Subtitle are identical to those of H.R. 3238.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
Title VII would express the sense of Congress on international energy
cooperation, emphasizing increased use of sustainable energy sources.
To support this, the Department of State would be encouraged to
establish (1) strategic energy partnerships with the governments of
major energy producers and consumers, and other governments; (2) a
petroleum crisis response mechanism with China and India; and (3) a
Western Hemisphere energy crisis response mechanism, a ministerial
Hemisphere Energy Cooperation Forum, and a Hemisphere Energy Industry
Group. Also, the bill would establish a "Hemisphere Energy
Cooperation Forum," that would be encouraged to implement initiatives
on energy sustainability and development.
Section 710 proposes the "No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels
(NOPEC) Act, which would make it illegal for any foreign state or
group of states to limit production of oil and natural gas to
influence the price of petroleum products in the United States. It
would deny the sovereign immunity of any state in violation of the
prohibition, and would allow the U.S. Attorney General to bring
action in any district court under antitrust laws.
Key Differences
The House provision only addresses energy cooperation with Israel.
International Climate Cooperation on Climate Change
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title II, Subtitle A, states that it would be the policy of the
United States to take a more active and constructive role in
international climate change negotiations, specifying future meetings
of the Conferences of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. Among the actions specified, the United
States would seek mitigation commitments from all major
greenhouse-gas (GHG) emitting nations, including China, India,
Brazil, and other major developing nations. An Office on Global
Climate Change would be established within the Department of State,
headed by an Ambassador-at-Large who would advance U.S. goals
concerning reducing emissions of GHGs and serve as a principal
adviser to the President and Secretary of State on climate change
policy.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
No similar provision.
Key Differences
No Senate provision.
Carbon Storage
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title IV, Subtitle F, would expand the DOE program for carbon capture
to include R&D for carbon storage and demonstration. DOE would
conduct 7 initial large-volume sequestration tests, preferably using
carbon dioxide (CO2) from large industrial or electricity-generating
sources, and would conduct at least 3 large-scale carbon capture
demonstration tests from industrial sources of CO2. Beginning in
2011, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) would review the
large-scale sequestration and capture programs. EPA would conduct a
research program to assess potential impacts of CO2 storage on the
environment, public health and safety associated with capture and
sequestration. A grant program for graduate degrees in geological
sequestration science would be established.
Title VII, Subtitle D, would establish a program in the Department of
the Interior (DOI) to be conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey that
would develop a methodology for, and conduct an assessment of, the
CO2 storage capacity of the United States.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
Title III of H.R. 6 is similar to Title IV, Subtitle F, and Title
VII, Subtitle D, of H.R. 3221. The DOE program would be expanded to
include carbon storage and carbon capture demonstration projects.
Also, a Department of the Interior program would be established to
assess the national carbon dioxide (CO2) storage capacity.
Key Differences
The Senate bill does not include an NAS review of the DOE programs,
nor establish a university-based grant program for geological
sequestration science. Also, the Senate bill does not require that
EPA assess impacts of CO2 capture and sequestration on public health
and safety and the environment. Title IV of the House bill authorizes
a higher level of appropriations for programs than the Senate bill.
(For more information on this topic see CRS Report RL33801, Direct
Carbon Sequestration: Capturing and Storing CO2, by Peter
Folger.)
Carbon Neutral Government
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title VI, Subtitle A, would require each federal agency to inventory
its greenhouse gas emissions annually. EPA would set collective
annual emission reduction targets, with a goal of zero net annual
emissions (carbon-neutrality) by 2050. Federal agencies would be
allowed to purchase qualified offsets and renewable energy
certificates in open market transactions. The maximum agency funding
for this Subtitle would be 0.01% of discretionary funds in FY2009 and
FY2010. This subtitle would not preempt state actions.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
No provision.
Key Differences
No Senate provision.
Energy Efficiency -- Buildings
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title IX, Subtitle A, Part 3, would encourage stronger state building
codes. Part 4 would create an Office of High Performance Green
Buildings at DOE. A national goal would be set to achieve
zero-net-energy use for new buildings after 2025. Certain green
building renovations would be eligible for loan guarantees under
§ 1703 of EPACT. Part 6 would create a federal revolving fund
that would make loans for combined heat and power projects at public
institutions.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
Title II, Subtitle E, would direct the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) to update energy efficiency standards for all
public and assisted housing.
Title IV Subtitle C, Part 2, would create a green schools program.
Key Differences
The House bill covers all building sectors; the Senate bill is
focused on public housing and schools.
The House bill has provisions for loan guarantees and a revolving
loan program.
Energy Efficiency -- State & Local
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title IX, Subtitle A, Part 3, would increase the funding
authorization for the DOE Weatherization program.
Part 9 would direct the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to establish an energy efficiency block grant program for state
and local governments. The program would support the development of
energy efficiency goals and strategies, public outreach, and
implementation.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
Title II, Subtitle F, would increase the funding authorization for
the DOE Weatherization program and reauthorize the State Energy
program. Also, it would require state utility regulatory commissions
to consider federal standards to promote energy efficiency.
Key Differences
The House bill creates a new HUD program. The Senate bill supports
existing DOE programs and calls for action by state regulatory
agencies.
Energy Efficiency -- Small Business
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title III would establish loans, grants, and debentures to help small
businesses develop, invest in, and purchase energy efficient
buildings, fixtures, equipment, and technology.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
No provision.
Key Differences
No Senate provision.
Green Jobs
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title I would authorize up to $125 million in funding to establish
national and state job training programs, administered by the U.S.
Department of Labor, to help address job shortages that are impairing
growth in green industries, such as energy efficient buildings and
construction, renewable electric power, energy efficient vehicles,
and biofuels development
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
No provision.
Key Differences
No Senate provision.
Electricity Transmission/Smart Grid
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title VII, Subtitle B, Chapter 5, would direct DOE to study
transmission capacity in California, Oregon, and Washington to
determine whether it could support new electricity generation from
ocean wave, tidal, and current energy projects that could contribute
up to 10% of total electricity use in those states.
Title IX, Subtitle B, would create an electric grid modernization
commission to study and propose policies on "Smart Grid" technology
implementation. A federal 25% matching grant program would be created
to support implementation. DOE would be directed to help deploy
technologies and perform cooperative demonstration projects with
electric utilities. States would be required to consider regulatory
standards that would allow utilities to recover smart grid
investments through rates and "decouple" utility profits from
electricity sales volume.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
No provisions.
Key Differences
No Senate provisions.
Wind Farm Impacts on Wildlife
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title VII, Subtitle B, Chapter 4, requires the Department of the
Interior to form a committee to recommend guidance to minimize and
assess impacts of land-based wind turbines on wildlife and their
habitat. State and federal laws (and regulations) would not be
preempted.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
No provision.
Key Differences
No Senate provision.
Renewable Energy R&D
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title IV would authorize funding for DOE to conduct R&D programs on
marine (Subtitle B), geothermal (Subtitle C), solar (Subtitle D), and
biofuels (Subtitle E) energy R&D.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
Title II, Subtitle G, would direct DOE to create an R&D program
focused on "marine energy" technology that produces electricity from
waves, tides, currents, and ocean thermal differences. (For more
background on marine energy, see CRS Report RL33883, Issues
Affecting Tidal, Wave, and In-Stream Generation Projects.)
Key Differences
Both bills include marine energy. The House bill includes other
energy technologies.
Hydrogen Award
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title IV, Subtitle H, would direct DOE to conduct a competitive
program to award cash prizes (HPrize) to advance R&D, demonstration,
and commercial application of hydrogen energy technologies.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
No provision.
Key Differences
This provision is identical to the H-Prize in H.R. 632, which passed
the House before H.R. 3221.
Price Gouging
House-Passed H.R. 3221
No provision.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
Title VI would criminalize price gouging in fuel markets during an
energy emergency. (For more details, see CRS Report RS22236,
Gasoline Price Increases: Federal and State Authority to Limit
"Price Gouging."
Key Differences
No provision in House bill. However, on May 23, 2007, the House
passed a similar version in a stand-alone bill, H.R. 1252, the
proposed Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act.
Agriculture Energy
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title V assumes several of the provisions from the energy title
(Title IX) of H.R. 2419 -- the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
of 2007 -- that was passed by the House on July 2, 2007. Both
Title V of H.R. 3221 and Title IX of H.R. 2419 expand and extend
several provisions from the energy title (Title IX) established by
the Farm Security Act of 2002, including substantial increases in
funding and a heightened focus on developing cellulosic ethanol
production. In particular, Title V of H.R. 3221 includes nearly $1
billion in production incentive payments on new biofuels production;
new funding to underwrite up to $1.6 billion in loan guarantees for
the development of new biorefineries; and $236 million in new funding
for research on biomass production, harvest, transportation, and
storage. (For more background, see CRS Report RL34130, Renewable
Energy Policy in the 2007 Farm Bill.)
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
No provision.
Key Differences
The major distinction between the agriculture energy titles of H.R.
3221 and H.R. 2419 is that Title IX of H.R. 2419 has higher funding
levels and more provisions than in Title V of H.R. 3221. In
particular, H.R. 2419 proposes a total of $3.2 billion in new funding
for Title IX energy provisions over 5 years compared with $2.2
billion under Title V of H.R. 3221. The most notable energy provision
of H.R. 2419 omitted from H.R. 3221 is a Biomass Energy Reserve (BER)
program to provide financial and technical assistance (including five
year contracts) to landowners and operators to grow dedicated energy
crops as feedstock for cellulosic ethanol and other energy
production.
ARPA-E
House-Passed H.R. 3221
Title IV, Subtitle A, would direct that an Advanced Research Projects
Agency -- Energy be established at DOE.
Senate-Passed H.R. 6
No provision.
Key Differences
Similar provision signed into law as part of the America Competes Act
(P.L. 110-69, § 5012).
FOOTNOTES
1 For more information about procedural requirements to bring a bill to conference, see CRS Report 96-708, Conference Committee and Related Procedures: An Introduction, by Betsy Palmer.
2 Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 6. June 13, 2007. 3 p.
3 Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2776 and H.R. 3221. August 3, 2007. 2 p.
END OF FOOTNOTES
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
- AuthorsSissine, Fred
- Institutional AuthorsCongressional Research Service
- Subject Area/Tax Topics
- Jurisdictions
- LanguageEnglish
- Tax Analysts Document NumberDoc 2007-19439
- Tax Analysts Electronic Citation2007 TNT 164-19
