Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Energy Independence and Security Act (Wikipedia)
Clean Energy Act of 2007
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, originally named the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007(H.R. 6) was a bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Democrats as part of their 100-Hour Plan for the actions they took during the first 100 business hours of the 110th Congress.[1] Sponsored by RepresentativeNick Rahall of West Virginia and cosponsored by 198 other representatives, it passed in the House without amendment in January 2007 and an amended version[2] passed the Senate on 2007-06-21.[3]
The stated purpose of the act is “[t]o reduce our Nation’s dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean,renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes.”[4]. It primarily seeks to cut subsidies to the petroleum industry in order to promote petroleum independence and different forms of alternative energy.
A revised bill passed both houses and was signed into law on December 19, 2007.
Contents [hide]
1 Provisions of the act
2 Support for the bill
3 Opposition to the bill
4 Status
4.1 Senate action on revised version
5 References
6 External links
[edit]Provisions of the act
Title I of the original bill, the “Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act of 2007,” denies certain tax deductions to producers of oil, natural gas, or primary products of oil or natural gas, and increases from five to seven years the period during which five major integrated oil companies must write off their expenditures on geological and geophysicalstudies related to oil exploration.
Title II, the “Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act of 2007,” addresses an oversight that occurred when theInterior Department issued oil and gas leases for off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in 1998 and 1999. The leases didn’t include price thresholds that require companies to pay royalties to the Federal Government when the price of oil and gas exceeds a certain level. These companies will be required to renegotiate their leases to include price thresholds that are equal or less than thresholds described in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Companies who do not renegotiate their leases or pay the fees will not be allowed to obtain any oil or gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
A solar trough array is an example of green energy.
Title II also repeals several provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. One provision suspended royalty fees on oil and gas production in certain waters of the Gulf of Mexico. A provision of the Energy Policy Act that protects drilling permit applicants from additional fees to recover the cost of processing paperwork is also repealed, and special policies for leases in the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska and royalty relief for specific offshore drilling in Alaska will be discontinued.
Title III of the bill creates a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve, an account to hold additional money received by the Federal Government as a result of the enactment of the act, and to offset the cost of subsequent legislation.
[edit]Support for the bill
The majority of the support for this proposed bill are Representatives that are from the Democratic party. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi gave an idea about the bill after it passed in the House of Representatives. She described the vote as “the first step toward a future of energy independence.” Moira Chapin, Environment CaliforniaFederal Field Organizer, said “… the 110th Congress made a down payment on a new energy future,” referring to is the investment in a renewable energy resource coming from solar and wind power generation facilities.[1] The House passed their version of the bill 264-163 while the Senate version passed 65-27.
Proponents also say the act provides an incentive for the purchase of energy-efficient appliances, buildings, and other equipment. A new energy alternative also adds to the future of energy by enabling more people to buy hybrid vehicles. New energy resources will create new industry, creating more jobs and helping to reduce American dependency on oil imports. Investing in an alternate energy resource could create as many as 3.3 million new jobs and could cut the amount of unemployment, add $1.4 trillion to the gross national product in our economy, and pay for itself within ten years.[1] Air quality will be improved by reducing the amount of emissions released by using a cleaner energy source other than oil.
Another supporter of the bill, Representative Steve Rothman of New Jersey, said that if the proposed bill passes, “the U.S. can improve air quality, create jobs, and corner a new business market.”[5]
[edit]Opposition to the bill
Opponents argue that the act will “increase Americans reliance on foreign sources of energy by making new domestic exploration and production more costly" and state that markets should drive U.S. energy policy. They are concerned that the Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve could be used for “politically-connectedpet projects,” citing a similar fund created by the Carter administration that went bankrupt after only a few years.[6]
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that the bill punishes an industry that has made many Americans wealthy for generations, adding that “Congress and various Administrations have perhaps imposed more regulations on the oil and gas industry than any other industry in the United States.” The Chamber says it supports the rapid development of alternative fuels but that the new technologies are not developed enough, and are insufficient to make any real difference. It believes more regulation on oil and gas producers is not the answer to the energy problem.[7]
Conservative activist and president of Americans for Tax Reform Grover Norquist characterizes the bill’s provisions regarding renegotiation of leases as a violation of binding contracts, calling the bill “a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge” since it doesn’t create tax cuts to offset the additional revenue it would raise.[6]
Representative Ted Poe says the bill “will decrease U.S. exploration and will increase our dependence on foreign oil,” and goes on to say, “by raising taxes and fees on oil and gas companies that choose to manufacture in America, the U.S. will become a less attractive place to produce oil and natural gas. This essentially creates incentives for foreign importation and could kill manufacturing jobs in an industry that employs nearly 1.8 million Americans.”[1]
Opponents included Democratic Senators Claire McCaskill, Mary Landrieu, Carl Levin, and Debbie Stabenow. House Democratic opponents were John Barrow and Jim Marshall of Georgia, Nick Lampson of Texas, and Dan Boren of Oklahoma
[edit]Status
The bill has passed both houses of Congress, but the Senate version was different than the House version. The Senate voted to increase automobile emission standards, but removed Title I of the bill, which would have raised taxes on oil producers by an estimated US$32 billion.[8] Instead of resolving differences in conference committee, a separate bill, H.R. 3221 was passed by the House and introduced in the Senate. In December a new version of H.R. 6 was passed by the House and sent to the Senate. The bill has been renamed the "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007".[9][10]
[edit]Senate action on revised version
On December 13, 2007 the Senate passed a revised version of the bill by a vote of 86 - 8.The final version increased fuel efficiency standards to 35 mpg by 2020, increased energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, and set a mandate for the vastly expanded use of ethanol and other biofuels. The bill also included $1.46 billion in increases in revenue to offset the estimated $2 billion that would be lost to gasoline taxes because of the improved automobile gasoline mileage.[11]
The earlier version of the bill with $13 billion raised from the oil industry, a mandate that utilities rely on renewable energy for at least 15 percent of their power generation, and a $21.8 billion 10-year tax package failed by a one vote margin. A final attempt the end debate and make way for a vote failed by 59 - 40 despite the return of four Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton (NY), Barack Obama (Ill.), Christopher Dodd (Conn.), andJoseph Biden (Del.). Nine Republicans voted in favor of ending debate while one Democrat, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) voted against it. Sen. John McCain was not present.[11]
The failed vote to end debate came after the White House and Sen. Domenici warned that Bush would veto the bill because of the tax portion. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Democrats had "shown how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" by "inserting an enormous tax hike, a tax hike they knew would doom this legislation." Reid said Congress should not be intimidated by a veto threat, "We are the Congress of the United States. We can write things even though the president may not like them." Democrats said that the tax measure was modest and only took back tax breaks the oil companies received in 2004 and that they did not need them with oil prices at about $90 a barrel.[11]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, originally named the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007(H.R. 6) was a bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Democrats as part of their 100-Hour Plan for the actions they took during the first 100 business hours of the 110th Congress.[1] Sponsored by RepresentativeNick Rahall of West Virginia and cosponsored by 198 other representatives, it passed in the House without amendment in January 2007 and an amended version[2] passed the Senate on 2007-06-21.[3]
The stated purpose of the act is “[t]o reduce our Nation’s dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean,renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes.”[4]. It primarily seeks to cut subsidies to the petroleum industry in order to promote petroleum independence and different forms of alternative energy.
A revised bill passed both houses and was signed into law on December 19, 2007.
Contents [hide]
1 Provisions of the act
2 Support for the bill
3 Opposition to the bill
4 Status
4.1 Senate action on revised version
5 References
6 External links
[edit]Provisions of the act
Title I of the original bill, the “Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act of 2007,” denies certain tax deductions to producers of oil, natural gas, or primary products of oil or natural gas, and increases from five to seven years the period during which five major integrated oil companies must write off their expenditures on geological and geophysicalstudies related to oil exploration.
Title II, the “Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act of 2007,” addresses an oversight that occurred when theInterior Department issued oil and gas leases for off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in 1998 and 1999. The leases didn’t include price thresholds that require companies to pay royalties to the Federal Government when the price of oil and gas exceeds a certain level. These companies will be required to renegotiate their leases to include price thresholds that are equal or less than thresholds described in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Companies who do not renegotiate their leases or pay the fees will not be allowed to obtain any oil or gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
A solar trough array is an example of green energy.
Title II also repeals several provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. One provision suspended royalty fees on oil and gas production in certain waters of the Gulf of Mexico. A provision of the Energy Policy Act that protects drilling permit applicants from additional fees to recover the cost of processing paperwork is also repealed, and special policies for leases in the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska and royalty relief for specific offshore drilling in Alaska will be discontinued.
Title III of the bill creates a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve, an account to hold additional money received by the Federal Government as a result of the enactment of the act, and to offset the cost of subsequent legislation.
[edit]Support for the bill
The majority of the support for this proposed bill are Representatives that are from the Democratic party. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi gave an idea about the bill after it passed in the House of Representatives. She described the vote as “the first step toward a future of energy independence.” Moira Chapin, Environment CaliforniaFederal Field Organizer, said “… the 110th Congress made a down payment on a new energy future,” referring to is the investment in a renewable energy resource coming from solar and wind power generation facilities.[1] The House passed their version of the bill 264-163 while the Senate version passed 65-27.
Proponents also say the act provides an incentive for the purchase of energy-efficient appliances, buildings, and other equipment. A new energy alternative also adds to the future of energy by enabling more people to buy hybrid vehicles. New energy resources will create new industry, creating more jobs and helping to reduce American dependency on oil imports. Investing in an alternate energy resource could create as many as 3.3 million new jobs and could cut the amount of unemployment, add $1.4 trillion to the gross national product in our economy, and pay for itself within ten years.[1] Air quality will be improved by reducing the amount of emissions released by using a cleaner energy source other than oil.
Another supporter of the bill, Representative Steve Rothman of New Jersey, said that if the proposed bill passes, “the U.S. can improve air quality, create jobs, and corner a new business market.”[5]
[edit]Opposition to the bill
Opponents argue that the act will “increase Americans reliance on foreign sources of energy by making new domestic exploration and production more costly" and state that markets should drive U.S. energy policy. They are concerned that the Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve could be used for “politically-connectedpet projects,” citing a similar fund created by the Carter administration that went bankrupt after only a few years.[6]
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that the bill punishes an industry that has made many Americans wealthy for generations, adding that “Congress and various Administrations have perhaps imposed more regulations on the oil and gas industry than any other industry in the United States.” The Chamber says it supports the rapid development of alternative fuels but that the new technologies are not developed enough, and are insufficient to make any real difference. It believes more regulation on oil and gas producers is not the answer to the energy problem.[7]
Conservative activist and president of Americans for Tax Reform Grover Norquist characterizes the bill’s provisions regarding renegotiation of leases as a violation of binding contracts, calling the bill “a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge” since it doesn’t create tax cuts to offset the additional revenue it would raise.[6]
Representative Ted Poe says the bill “will decrease U.S. exploration and will increase our dependence on foreign oil,” and goes on to say, “by raising taxes and fees on oil and gas companies that choose to manufacture in America, the U.S. will become a less attractive place to produce oil and natural gas. This essentially creates incentives for foreign importation and could kill manufacturing jobs in an industry that employs nearly 1.8 million Americans.”[1]
Opponents included Democratic Senators Claire McCaskill, Mary Landrieu, Carl Levin, and Debbie Stabenow. House Democratic opponents were John Barrow and Jim Marshall of Georgia, Nick Lampson of Texas, and Dan Boren of Oklahoma
[edit]Status
The bill has passed both houses of Congress, but the Senate version was different than the House version. The Senate voted to increase automobile emission standards, but removed Title I of the bill, which would have raised taxes on oil producers by an estimated US$32 billion.[8] Instead of resolving differences in conference committee, a separate bill, H.R. 3221 was passed by the House and introduced in the Senate. In December a new version of H.R. 6 was passed by the House and sent to the Senate. The bill has been renamed the "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007".[9][10]
[edit]Senate action on revised version
On December 13, 2007 the Senate passed a revised version of the bill by a vote of 86 - 8.The final version increased fuel efficiency standards to 35 mpg by 2020, increased energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, and set a mandate for the vastly expanded use of ethanol and other biofuels. The bill also included $1.46 billion in increases in revenue to offset the estimated $2 billion that would be lost to gasoline taxes because of the improved automobile gasoline mileage.[11]
The earlier version of the bill with $13 billion raised from the oil industry, a mandate that utilities rely on renewable energy for at least 15 percent of their power generation, and a $21.8 billion 10-year tax package failed by a one vote margin. A final attempt the end debate and make way for a vote failed by 59 - 40 despite the return of four Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton (NY), Barack Obama (Ill.), Christopher Dodd (Conn.), andJoseph Biden (Del.). Nine Republicans voted in favor of ending debate while one Democrat, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) voted against it. Sen. John McCain was not present.[11]
The failed vote to end debate came after the White House and Sen. Domenici warned that Bush would veto the bill because of the tax portion. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Democrats had "shown how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" by "inserting an enormous tax hike, a tax hike they knew would doom this legislation." Reid said Congress should not be intimidated by a veto threat, "We are the Congress of the United States. We can write things even though the president may not like them." Democrats said that the tax measure was modest and only took back tax breaks the oil companies received in 2004 and that they did not need them with oil prices at about $90 a barrel.[11]
Energy Security Act
H.R. 6 would reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)