The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 109–58 (text) (PDF)) is a federal law signed by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005, at Sandia National LaboratoriesinAlbuquerque, 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. The most consequential aspect of the law was to greatly increase ethanol production [2] to be blended with gasoline. The law also repealed the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, effective February 2006.[3]
 | |
| Other short titles |
|
|---|---|
| Long title | An Act to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy. |
| Enacted by | the 109th United States Congress |
| Effective | August 8, 2005 |
| Citations | |
| Public law | 109-58 |
| Statutes at Large | 119 Stat. 594 |
| Codification | |
| Acts amended | Energy Policy Act of 1992 Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978 |
| Acts repealed | Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 |
| Titles amended | 16 U.S.C.: Conservation 42 U.S.C.: Public Health and Social Welfare |
| U.S.C. sections created | 42 U.S.C. ch. 149 § 15801 et seq. |
| U.S.C. sections amended | 16 U.S.C. ch. 46 § 2601 et seq. 42 U.S.C. ch. 134 § 13201 et seq. |
| Legislative history | |
| |
| Major amendments | |
| American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 | |
The law amended 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 of November (November 4, 2007), rather than on the last Sunday of October (October 28, 2007). This had the net effect of slightly lengthening the duration of daylight saving time.
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.[15] This section of the act is controversial; some have questioned whether daylight saving results in net energy savings.[16]
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 section §179D of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)[4] Many building owners are unaware that the [Policy Act of 2005] includes a tax deduction (§179D) for investments in "energy efficient commercial building property" designed to significantly reduce the heating, cooling, water heating and interior lighting cost of new or existing commercial buildings placed into service between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2013. §179D includes full and partial tax deductions for investments in energy efficient commercial building that are designed to increase the efficiency of energy-consuming functions. Up to $.60 for lighting, $.60 for HVAC and $.60 for building envelope, creating a potential deduction of $1.80 per sq/ft. 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.[17]
To obtain these benefits the facilities/energy division of a business, its tax department, and a firm specializing in EPAct 179D deductions needed to cooperate. IRS mandated software had to be used and an independent 3rd party had to certify the qualification. For municipal buildings, benefits were passed through to the primary designers/architects in an attempt to encourage innovative municipal design.
The Commercial Buildings Tax Deduction expiration date had been extended twice, last by the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008. With this extension, the CBTD could be claimed for qualifying projects completed before January 1, 2014.[17][18]
The commercial building tax deductions[19] could be used to improve the payback period of a prospective energy improvement investment. The deductions could be combined by participating in demand response programs where building owners agree to curtail usage at peak times for a premium. The most common qualifying projects were in the area of lighting.
Summary of Energy Savings Percentages Provided by IRS Guidance[20]
Percentages permitted under Notice 2006-52 (Effective for property placed in service January 1, 2006 – December 31, 2008)
Percentages permitted under Notice 2008-40 (Effective for property placed in service January 1, 2006 – December 31, 2013)
Percentages permitted under Notice 2012-22
Effective date of Notice 2012-22 – December 31, 2013; if §179D is extended beyond December 31, 2013, is also effective (except as otherwise provided in an amendment of §179D or the guidance thereunder) during the period of the extension.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) review of the conference version of the bill estimated the Act would increase direct spending by $2.2 billion over the 2006–2010 period, and by $1.6 billion over the 2006–2015 period. The CBO did not attempt to estimate additional effects on discretionary spending. 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.[citation needed]
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this sectionbyadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
The collective reduction in national consumption of energy (gas and electricity) is significant for home heating. The Act provided gible 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.
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, President of the United States from January 2009 to January 2017, voted in favor of the bill.
To remove from 18 CFR Part 366.1 the definitions of "electric utility company" and exempt wholesale generator (EWG), that an EWG is not an electric utility company.[3]
June 28, 2005, 10:00 a.m. Yeas - 85, Nays - 12
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.
July 29, 2005, 12:50 p.m.[25] Yeas - 74, Nays - 26
| Stage | House of Representatives | Senate |
|---|---|---|
| Initial Debate | ||
| Introduction | April 18, 2005 | June 11 |
| Committed | April 18 | June 14 |
| Committee Name(s) | Energy and Commerce Education and the Workforce Financial Services Agriculture Resources Science Ways and Means Transportation and Infrastructure |
|
| Committee Stage | April 18 to 19 | |
| Committee Report | April 19 | |
| Floor Debate | April 19 to 21 | June 14 to 23 Cloture invoked June 23,[26] |
| Passage | April 21,[27] | June 28,[28] |
| Conference Stage | ||
| Conference Demanded/Accepted | July 13 | July 1 |
| Conference Meetings | July 14 to 24 | |
| Report Filed | July 27 | |
| Final Passage | ||
| Final Debate | July 28 | July 28 to 29 Budget Act waived, July 29,[29] |
| Concurrence and Passage | July 28,[30] | July 29,[31] |
| Presented to President | August 4 | |
| Signed | August 8 | |
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
In December 2007, with the imminent arrival of $100-per-barrel oil, the U.S. Congress swiftly acted to upgrade the 2005 biofuels initiative and RFS from its original target of 7 billion US gallons (26,000,000 m3) by 2012 to a revised RFS target (passed in December 2007) of 36 billion US gallons (140,000,000 m3) of biofuels production by 2022.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
See table in §3 of Part III. Administrative, Procedural, and Miscellaneous
