Article Rating
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
Article Tools
Email This Story Share This Story Add to Bookmarks Printer Friendly Version 12 Comments
Article Tool Sponsor:

Learn More About Online Advertising with RenewableEnergyWorld.com

President Signs Energy Bill

Published: August 8, 2005

Albuquerque, New Mexico [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] President Bush has signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The signing of this bill represents the culmination of years of Congressional stalemate over a vast energy policy package, and a central policy goal of the Bush Administration since the president's first term in office.

"It is fitting that it will be signed in New Mexico where energy of all types is so important to our state."

- Senator Pete V. Domenici (R. NM)
"This bipartisan bill contains numerous provisions that will make energy cleaner, more efficient, and more widely available in the future," said New Mexico's Republican Senator Pete V. Domenici who, as Chairman of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, was the leading lawmaker on the policy package.

"It is fitting that it will be signed New Mexico, where energy of all types is so important to our state," Domenici said.

Although most of bill's 14 billion price tag level incentives and tax breaks to the traditional fossil fuel industries, a number of supportive policy wins for renewable energy could usher in a new business cycle for the clean energy industries.

The package includes a two-year extension of the wind power industry's coveted Production Tax Credit (PTC), which will also be extended to a wide array of other renewable energy technologies.

The solar industry receives an unprecedented two-year investment tax credit for solar PV, thermal and Concentrating Solar Power (CSP). The first such legislation in decades, the national tax credit would be capped at $2000 per residential project and have no limit on commercial projects.

With their strong farm-belt constituencies, biofuels, and particularly ethanol, made out well through the inclusion of an expanded renewable fuels standard that will effectively double the amount of biofuels being produced.

Ocean energy, a particularly undeveloped technology in the U.S. received a host of policy items to help propel new projects. Geothermal and hydropower also received helpful policy items, as did hydrogen and fuel cells.

In short, all the renewable energy technologies, except small wind, received something to help promote their development and businesses.

There are also tax breaks for homeowners to use energy efficiency appliances and make energy efficiency improvements and tax breaks for the purchase of hybrid-electric cars like the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight.

Dropped was the Senate's passage of a 10 percent national Renewable Portfolio Standard, along with attempts to curb the nation's use of oil or to increase overall vehicle efficiency standards.

With the bill's signing today, the bill's many policy items go into effect beginning next year.
Additional Information
Previous Article
Next Article
Add Your Comment 12 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 12
August 8, 2005
The energy bill does not balance funding for existing, traditional energy generation and renewable energy systems. It is not, as many have pointed out, fair or foreward looking. But, it is a start. It's more than I expected from this congress and this administration.
We need to recognize that there are credits for renewable energy and it's up to us in the renewable energy industry to ensure we deploy as many well constructed systems as possible in the 2 year trial period.
Yesterday the only energy policy we had was the $1 billion a day we currently spend in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today we have a $2,000 tax credit for every family that wants to change the way they use energy.
The ball is in our court. If we want to see a more renewable energy friendly energy bill in the future, we have to do a good job with what we have today and work to elect people to congress that are willing to represent our industry and move the country in an energy independent direction.
No image available
Comment
2 of 12
August 8, 2005
While the energy bill contains some positive provisions for energy efficiency as well as solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels, hydropower, and fuel cells, they are mostly short-term and inadequate, and therefore will fail to tap the full potential of sustainable energy options. On the other hand, the bill is heavily tilted in favor of - and provides the lion's share of $14 billion in subsidies for - mature, polluting energy technologies. Consequently, rising energy imports, climate change, and reliance on polluting fossil fuel and nuclear technologies will continue to threaten the nation's economy, national security, public health, and the environment. None of these problems will go away. None will be solved by the new energy bill. In fact, all may well be made worse by it. It's time for Congress to return to the drawing board and produce real energy legislation.
No image available
Comment
3 of 12
August 9, 2005
Fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas have been essential resources for convenient, comfortable lifestyles.

However, these energy sources greatly influence the state of the environment and are a factor that caused global warming.

US Government is dedicated to contributing towards more comfortable living for all and to promoting co-existence with the global environment.

negrinienergy@yahoo.com
No image available
Comment
4 of 12
August 9, 2005
Our congressional leaders and now our president certainly have proved that they can get away with legislation that will hurt our country. If they cannot see that we will be more at mercy of OPEC countries in the years to follow, then they are to be pitied for their blindness.

What can we say or do if those without future vision are our leaders. All I can say is that we are so dependent upon foreign oil, that this dependency is a most critical weakness to our continuing to be a stong nation.

If a person is sick and the doctor alleviates the symptoms without curing the ailment, then it is only a matter of time before the the disease worsens. Pleasant words to the patient do not insure recovery.

adrianakau@aol.com
No image available
Comment
5 of 12
August 9, 2005
I agree with Eric Rowland but i disagree on the time frame congress has thrown into this.
two years is not enough time to get the systems installed where they need be and can be.

the energy bill is a whitewash to make it look like they are doing something about the enviroment. it is just enough time to allow the president to leave office beofre the next energy crisis sets in.

For truely effective energy use reductions it totally relies on us no government is going to force reductions down our throats.
Personally i am disappointed they didn't hit the auto makers with higher MPG laws. But of course i did not expect them too with the gasoline tax they have on the pump. Did you?

D~Q
No image available
Comment
6 of 12
August 14, 2005
I tend to be against things that swing markets because because people tend to focus on how to profit from the swings rather than sound technology.

Also, the problem with nuclear technology was not regulatory or due to protesters. Nuclear power's problems resulted from the organizations tendency to hide negative data, which tended to be the very data necessary to make designs more reliable.
No image available
Comment
7 of 12
August 15, 2005
Great news, a federal tax credit for PV....
So what do I tell my customers under contract for PV installations this fall??? I can't afford to send much of the work to next year, but if I don't, they'll miss out on $2,000 from the Feds. Who else is dealing with this mixed blessing, and what is your solution?

info@ojaisolar.com
No image available
Comment
8 of 12
September 8, 2005
--(sidenote continued)--
If we can bomb any country within a few hours, why the hell does it take so long to get helicopters to a place where people are dyeing on their roves? The only answer is that Bush waited to long to act. With all the money that our generous nation is giving to the victums, the only reason that people arn't getting help soon enough is a lack of organization and leadership. Isn't it the executive branch's job to provide that leadership? To me, that proves beond a doubt that our president is clearly unfit for comand.
No image available
Comment
9 of 12
September 8, 2005
--(compleatly unrelated sidenote)
How many people agree with me when I say that Bush really showed how much of a retarded dumbass he realy is by totally lagging the Katrina releif effort? He just dispached 400 rescue helicopters yesterday; Why the hell didn't he do that before he even ended his vacation! If that jerk isn't ready to start taking serious action on global warming, than he had better be ready to assist the people who are getting pounded by constant huracaines because of it.
No image available
Comment
10 of 12
September 8, 2005
--(cont.)
I would guess that the biggest gains were made in the areas of biofuels, just because they would not only get support from the democratic envioronmentalists nationwide, but also from the midwest republican farmers. There seems to be significant gains for solar and wind as well though, so the gains for biofeuels could be even better. I think that biofeuels will play an intagral part in the worldwide swich to renewables because they are best at replacing oil most appliances that feuel our "great American freedom" (such as cars, ships, trains, and airplains). Biodiesel for example, runs better and cleaner in most vehicles than regular desiel and only costs about $0.60 more per gallon (but it can be hard to find).
All in all, I think the energy bill is about 20% smart and 80% dumb, but that's not as bad as I expected; Bush and most of GOP are 90-100% dumb, so they didn't do as bad as they could have ;·).
No image available
Comment
11 of 12
September 8, 2005
--(continued)--
The answer to the above question is obvious, but the more important question that I think we should be thinking about is "How can we continue our fossil-feueled American way of life after we run out of cheap Oil in 70-120 years(cheap meaning remotely affordable). Oil and gas prices will never significantly drop again unless demand for oil and gas signifigantly drops. The only way to continue our lifestyle that I can see is to shift to renewable energy. In my oppinion, it is the government's job to offer insentives to resist the urge to reep the immediat gains offered by fossile feuels and make a long term investment in renewable energy.
No image available
Comment
12 of 12
September 8, 2005
I mostly agree with Eric Rowland, but I have to admit Giulio Negrini has a point about how fossil feuels have been essential resources for us to maintain our American lifestyles. However, because fossil feuels are so important, there is already a heigh demand for them. The prices on fossil feuels are heigh right now because we are running out of them (except coal), and the demand is still the same. Why should the government offer incentives to companies that are making record profits right now because of heigh prices, but become closer to bankrupsy with every gallon of oil drained from the planet?
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
 
ET Solar Group Orion Group National Hydrogen Association Johnson Controls, Inc. Energy Ocean Conference SolarEdge Technologies groSolar
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters