webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

2005 Energy Policy Act

Note: this is in climate legislation category for purposes of contrast

secret task force report led to bills:

Haliburton gave 1 mil gop 97-02, and all soft money 1/2 mil to gop ; incentive to

pollute added to rep.bill, tho O'N says does not cost more to do right.

conservation a private virtue, not basis of public policy DC TO speech mo before

rep released 107  but 1 mpg increase = ANWR  2.6 = iraq and kuwait import, 8 all

of ME 108  JC cafe up 7.5, shortage --> glut p108, 86 rolled by RR; lovens says if

not, we need no persian gulf oil after 86; no need for wars; since 1990 80 mil car

$ , cancelled tax ded for green cars, less effic st'ds $100K tax break hummers etc.

result worst effic in 20 yrs 109  tax cuts to offset energy prices [basically

another subsidy !?]  bill ~ Daschle but end-run, by june 02  3/4 of 105 recs in

place

uscoc2

JOSTEN IS THE KEY ARCHITECT OF THE U.S. CHAMBER'S RESURGENT POSITION AS LEADER OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY'S POLICY ANDGRASSROOTS ACTIVITIES IN THE 104TH THROUGH THE 111TH CONGRESSES. IN THE 104TH CONGRESS, WHEN HOUSE AND SENATE LEADERS SOUGHT A PROMINENT FIGURE IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY TO HEAD THEIR BALANCED BUDGET COALITION—THE KEY AGENDA ITEM IN THE BATTLE AGAINST BIG GOVERNMENT—THEY TURNED TO JOSTEN AND THE U.S. CHAMBER, CALLING HIM "UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO LEAD THIS MAJOR CAMPAIGN." HIS PERSISTENT EFFORTS RESULTED IN THE PASSAGE OF THE FIRST BALANCED BUDGET IN 29 YEARS AND THE FIRST TAX CUT IN 16 YEARS.

IN THE 107TH CONGRESS, JOSTEN CO-FOUNDED THE TAX RELIEF COALITION AND HELPED ENACT THE $1.35 TRILLION TAX RELIEF PACKAGE, THE FIRST MAJOR TAX CUT IN A GENERATION. AS THE NATION CONFRONTED ITS FIRST ENERGY CRISIS IN A QUARTER CENTURY, JOSTEN HELPED FORM THE ALLIANCE FOR ENERGY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH(ALLIANCE), A COALITION THAT WORKED TO ENACT A COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY, INCLUDING THE ENERGY POLICY ACT  2005 ] AND THE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE SECURITY ACT. JOSTEN SERVES AS THE CHIEF SPOKESPERSON FOR THE ALLIANCE.

10 yr anni:

http://www.alternet.org/print/environment/10-years-later-fracking-and-halliburton-loophole

This past Saturday, marked a notable 10th anniversary. But it was certainly nothing to celebrate. Ten years ago, President George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The giant energy bill included massive giveaways for the fossil fuel, nuclear [3] and ethanol industries and provided only token incentives for renewables [4] and improved energy efficiency. But the most infamous piece of the law was what is now commonly known as the “Halliburton Loophole [5],” an egregious regulatory exemption that ushered in the disastrous era of widespread oil and gas fracking that currently grips our nation.

Fracking [12]— the extreme oil and gas extraction method that involves blasting millions of gallons of water mixed with toxic chemicals underground at enormous pressures to break apart subterranean rock — has exploded in the last decade. More than 270,000 wells have been fracked in 25 states throughout the nation. More than 10 million Americans live within a mile of a fracking site. This means that 10 million Americans — and truly many more — have been placed directly in harm’s way. Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies have connected fracking to serious human health effects, including cancer, asthma and birth defects.

For this we can thank the Energy Policy Act of 2005 [13], the law that holds the Halliburton Loophole. Named after Dick Cheney and the notorious corporation he led before becoming vice president, the law (championed by Cheney and disgraced Enron founder Kenneth Lay, among others) explicitly exempted fracking operations from key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. These exemptions from one of America’s most fundamental environmental protection laws provided the oil and gas industry the immunity it required to develop a highly polluting process on a grand national scale.

[vid]

One of the most troubling repercussions is how fracking companies hide the contents of their toxic water and chemical solutions pumped into the ground. Contamination of underground drinking water sources from fracking fluids is a glaring threat to public health and safety. Yet even doctors responding to fracking-related health complaints can’t access data on what particular chemicals their patients may have been exposed to.

But the Halliburton Loophole wasn’t the only fracking enabler in the Energy Policy Act. The act granted the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC [14]) sweeping new authority to supersede state and local decision-making with regard to the citing of fracked gas pipelines and infrastructure. It also shifted to FERC industry oversight and compliance responsibility for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, another key law. This was akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

As it stands, FERC is entirely unaccountable to public will [15]. It is unaccountable to Congress and even the White House. Commissioners are appointed to five-year terms and can do as they please. Until a law reigning in FERC is passed, the commission will continue to act as a rubber-stamp for the fossil fuel industry.

Additionally, the Energy Policy Act repealed an important anti-monopoly law, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA). PUHCA safeguarded consumers from the overreach of the oil and gas industry and banks that did business with those companies. It prevented the formation of giant state and regional energy cartels that could manipulate energy costs, engage in profiteering and exert undue influence over political debate. The Energy Policy Act transferred most of this oversight to FERC. Since then, the largest American energy companies have grown significantly more powerful and spent almost a billion dollars on federal lobbying, according to OpenSecrets.org [16].

The 10th anniversary of the Energy Policy Act is indeed a sad occasion, but it provides us with a ripe opportunity to reexamine our nation’s disastrous policy of doubling-down on fossil fuels over the last decade, thanks to the extreme process of fracking. For the sake of countless Americans who are currently suffering health effects caused by fracking and the countless more who will suffer in the future, we must immediately curtail our dependence on oil and gas and turn decisively toward a truly clean, renewable energy future.

==

only 2 Rep Pombo, Richard W. [CA-11] - 4/18/2005

Rep Thomas, William M. [CA-22] - 4/18/2005

==

==

:{sourcewatch barton:

}:

House Energy Policy Act 2005

Barton, Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, was criticized for many provisions in the 2005 House Energy Policy Act, some of which did not make it into the final Act (drilling in ANWR, for example). [3]. "Itemizing the anti-environmental provisions of the House energy bill is a mind-numbing exercise," Frank O'Donnell, president of the Clean Air Watch wrote, including "new loopholes that could reduce gas mileage requirements; weaker protections for coastal communities; tax breaks to promote more coal burning. And that's just the beginning." [4] O'Donnell continued, "Indeed, if the legislation became law in its current form, it would prolong smog problems in much of the nation, shift the burden of cleaning up poisoned water supplies from oil companies to cash-strapped public agencies, and even threaten environmental damage from some forms of renewable energy. These are on top of the well-publicized provisions that would permit big oil companies to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for a few months worth of oil that wouldn't reach consumers for a decade."

After President Bush signed the final form of the bill into law in July 2005, The Washington Post contended that the spending bill was really a broad collection of subsidies for United States energy companies; in particular, the nuclear and oil industries [5].

Speaking for the National Republicans for Environmental Protection Association, President Martha Marks said that the organization was disappointed in the bill: it did not give enough of a short to conservation, and continued to subsidize the well-established oil and gas industries that don't require subsidizing. [6]

In April 2005, the same month full committee mark-up on the bill began,[7] Barton was honored by The Annapolis Center (identified by The Wall Street Journal as a polluter front group) [8] for "work in [his] field supporting rational, science-based thinking and policy-making"[9]. The evening's keynote address was given by Fred Barnes, co-host of the "Beltway Boys" on the Fox News Channel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub.L. 109-58) is a bill passed by the United States Congress on July 29, 2005, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005, at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The act, described by proponents as an attempt to combat growing energy problems, changed US energy policy by providing tax incentives and loan guarantees for energy production of various types.

Contents [hide]

[edit] Provisions

[edit] General provisions

In Congressional bills, an "authorization" of a discretionary program is a permission to spend money, while an "appropriation" is the actual decision to spend it. The authorizations above will not get carried out if money is never appropriated for them.

[edit] Tax reductions by subject area

[edit] Change to daylight saving time

Further information: Daylight saving time in the United States

The bill amends the Uniform Time Act of 1966 by changing the start and end dates of daylight saving time, beginning in 2007. Clocks were set ahead one hour on the second Sunday of March (March 11, 2007) instead of on the first Sunday of April (April 1, 2007). Clocks were set back one hour on the first Sunday in November (November 4, 2007), rather than on the last Sunday of October (October 28, 2007).

Lobbyists for this provision included the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Convenience Stores, and the National Retinitis Pigmentosa Foundation Fighting Blindness.

Lobbyists against this provision included the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the National Parent-Teacher Association, the Calendaring and Scheduling Consortium, the Edison Electric Institute, and the Air Transport Association.[11] This section of the act is controversial; some have questioned whether daylight saving results in net energy savings.[12]

[edit] Commercial building deduction

The Act created the Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings Tax Deduction, a special financial incentive designed to reduce the initial cost of investing in energy-efficient building systems via an accelerated tax deduction. Under this provision, building owners (or tenants) can write off the complete cost of upgrading a building’s indoor lighting, HVAC/hot water and building envelope in the year the new equipment is placed in service, capped at $1.80/square foot. Alternately, the owner (or tenant) can upgrade one of these three systems to earn the Deduction capped at $0.60/square foot. Interior lighting may also be improved using the Interim Lighting Rule, which provides a simplified process to earn the Deduction, capped at $0.30-$0.60/square foot. Improvements are compared to a baseline of ASHRAE 2001 standards.[13]

Many buildings are eligible for tax deductions for improvements completed or planned within the normal course of business, and can thus "free ride" for the new incentives. Achievement of these benefits requires cooperation between the facilities/energy division of a business and its tax department or a firm specializing in EPAct 179D deductions. A tax advisor with engineers on staff may serve as a bridge between these two historically separate business divisions. For municipal buildings, benefits are passed through to the primary designers/architects in an attempt to encourage innovative municipal design.

The Commercial Buildings Tax Deduction expiration date has been extended twice, most recently by the Energy Independence Act of 2007 (EISA). With this extension, the CBTD can be claimed for qualifying projects completed before January 1, 2014.[13][14]

[edit] Energy management

The commercial building tax deductions can be used to improve the payback period of a prospective energy improvement investment.

Often the deductions are combined with participation in demand response programs where buildings agree to curtail usage at peak times for a premium.

The most common qualifying projects are in the lighting area. According to the Interim Rules for Lighting Projects, the lighting system energy savings target is a LPD (lighting power density), or watts per square foot, that is 25% to 40% lower than the minimum requirements of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2001. For warehouses, the lighting power density (W/sq. ft.) must be 50% lower than the minimum requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2001 to be eligible for $0.60 per square foot. Lighting power density (W/sq. ft.) reductions of >25% are ineligible for any tax deduction.

In addition to demonstrating a reduction in lighting power density lower than the requirements for the Standard 90.1–2001, control provisions (for example, automatic lighting shutoff) relating to lighting systems as set forth in the Standard must be met. Bi-level switching must be installed. The lighting system must also meet the minimum requirements for calculated light levels as set forth in the 9th Edition of the IESNA Lighting Handbook.

[edit] Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimate

The Congressional Budget Office review of the conference version of the bill estimated the Act will increase direct spending by $2.2 billion over the 2006-2010 period, and by $1.6 billion over the 2006-2015 period. In addition, the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the legislation would reduce revenues by $7.9 billion over the 2005-2010 period and by $12.3 billion over the 2005-2015 period. The CBO noted that the bill could have additional effects on discretionary spending, but did not attempt to estimate those effects.

[edit] Support

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2008)

The collective reduction in national consumption of energy (gas and electricity) is significant for home heating. The Act provided tangible financial incentives (tax credits) for average homeowners to make environmentally positive changes to their homes. It made improvements to home energy use more affordable for walls, doors, windows, roofs, water heaters, etc. Consumer spending, and hence the national economy, was abetted. Industry grew for manufacture of these environmentally positive improvements. These positive improvements have been near and long-term in effect.

The collective reduction in national consumption of oil is significant for automotive vehicles. The Act provided tangible financial incentives (tax credits) for operators of hybrid vehicles. It helped fuel competition among auto makers to meet rising demands for fuel-efficient vehicles. Consumer spending, and hence the national economy, was abetted. Dependence on imported oil was reduced. The national trade deficit was improved. Industry grew for manufacture of these environmentally positive improvements. These positive improvements have been near and long-term in effect.

[edit] Criticism

[edit] Legislative history

The Act was voted on and passed twice by the United States Senate, once prior to conference committee, and once after. In both cases, there were numerous senators who voted against the bill. John McCain, the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2008 election voted against the bill. Democrat Barack Obama, the current President of the United States, voted in favor of the bill.

[edit] Provisions in the original bill that were not in the act

[edit] Preliminary Senate vote

June 28, 2005, 10:00 a.m. Yeas - 85, Nays - 12

[edit] Conference committee

The bill's conference committee included 14 Senators and 51 House members. The senators on the committee were: Republicans Domenici, Craig, Thomas, Alexander, Murkowski, Burr, Grassley and Democrats Bingaman, Akaka, Dorgan, Wyden, Johnson, and Baucus.

[edit] Final Senate vote

July 29, 2005, 12:50 p.m.[19] Yeas - 74, Nays - 26

sw

Energy Policy Act of 2005

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law August 8, 2005.

Print of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, House of Representatives' Committee on Energy & Commerce, Joe Barton, Chairman.

Contents[hide]

Lovins says nuclear power dead

Amory Lovins, the Chief Executive Officer of the Rocky Mountains Institute, an eco-efficiency think tank, argues that the subsidies provided to nuclear power in the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005 "are equal to the entire capital cost of the next six reactors . . . but is similar to defibrillating a corpse: it will jump but not revive." [1]

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

External links

If You Were "King" or "Il Duce"?

   Joseph Kelliher, a former Energy Department official, had been soliciting advice from Williams, Reliant, El Paso, Enron and other energy companies on natural gas issues on behalf of Cheney, another area those companies were accused of gaming, particularly in California.

   In a March 10, 2001 email, just a week or so after Cheney was briefed by Cruikshank about the Williams scheme, Kelliher emailed energy lobbyist Dana Contratto, asking Contratto if he was "King or "Il Duce, what would you include in a national energy policy, especially with respect to natural gas issues?", according to energy task force documents.

   Contratto responded with a three-page list of ideas, many of which were included in the final version of the energy policy.

   On another occasion, Kelliher sought out Stephen Craig Sayle, an Enron Corp. lobbyist, to make similar recommendations. Sayle, former counsel for the House Commerce Committee, sent Kelliher Enron's "dream list." The list included a recommendation that the administration commit to market-based emissions trading,which was also used in administration's National Energy Policy.

   Sayle wrote Kelliher about the energy policy, saying, "a multi-pollutant regulatory strategy should be estimated for the power generation sector including: Gradually phased in [mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions] reductions; reform/replacement of NSR; use of market-based/emission trading programs; inclusion of both existing and new plants and equal treatment for both. The last bullet is the critical one to ensure that: a) we encourage the new generation that is required; b) we ensure that the new technologies developed through DOE programs can come into the market.

   "Obviously, this is a dream list," Sayle said in the March 23, 2001 email he sent to Kelliher. "Not all will be done. But perhaps some of these ideas could be floated and adopted."

   Sayle also provided Kelliher with a PowerPoint presentation on behalf of his other energy clients in the so-called Clean Power Group, a consortium made up of a handful of the country's biggest energy companies, including NiSource Inc., Calpine Corp., Trigen Energy Corp. and El Paso Corp, whose mission, according to the group's web site, is to "streamline requirements under the Clean Air Act for electric generating facilities while at the same time making major reductions in air emissions."

   The PowerPoint presentation, A Comprehensive Multi-Pollutant Emission Control Strategy for Power Generation, summarized the Clean Power Group's support of a "cap and trade"method in addressing emissions of mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide from power plants, but included a proposal for a voluntary cap on carbon dioxide. The Clean Power Group stood to benefit from the initiative it urged Kelliher to get the White House to adopt in that the companies could release more emissions under its proposed plan than under the more restrictive rules the Clinton administration had put in place.

After receiving Sayle's email and supporting material, Kelliher recommended that President Bush "direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose multi-pollutant legislation that would establish a flexible, market-based program to significantly reduce and cap emissions; provide regulatory certainty to allow utilities to make modifications to their plants without fear of new litigation; provide market based incentives, such as emissions-trading credits to help achieve the required reductions," all of which the president approved and was eventually incorporated into the National Energy Policy.

In fact, President Bush's "Clear Skies" initiative consists of many of the bullet points laid out months earlier in Sayle's email to Kelliher.

   In addition to Kelliher's correspondence with Sayle, he also met with oil and gas industry lobbyists who helped draft language that Kelliher passed on directly to the White House. Two months later, the president issued executive orders nearly identical to those Kelliher received from the lobbyists months earlier, according to energy task force documents.

   Kelliher now chairs FERC, the agency that is entrusted with keeping a close eye on wholesale energy markets, ensuring that companies like Williams and Reliant refrain from engaging in the type of manipulative practices they were caught doing during the spring and summer of 2000 in California.

Cheney Orders FERC to Seal Evidence...http://archive.truthout.org/article/jason-leopold-cheney-suppressed-evidence-california-energy-crisis**

Attachments