Side-by-Side Comparison of Energy Tax Provisions of H.R. 6899 and S. 3478
Released: 2008-09-18T00:00:00

Summary:
The Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act, H.R. 6899, was introduced on September 15, 2008, and approved by the House on September 16, 2008. This plan allows oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and it incorporates most of the energy tax provisions from an energy tax bill, H.R. 5351, and some of H.R. 6049, both of which were previously approved by the House of Representatives but failed to be taken up by the Senate.
In the Senate, legislative efforts on energy tax incentives and energy tax extenders center around S. 3478, the $40 billion energy tax bill offered by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and ranking Republican Charles Grassley, and supported by Senate Democratic leadership. In the Senate, controversy over tax increases on the oil and gas industry, particularly over proposed repeal of the tax code's §199 deduction for the major integrated oil companies, continues; it remains unclear whether an energy tax bill with this provision will pass a cloture vote to limit debate, and thus be taken up.
This report is a side-by-side comparison of energy tax bills H.R. 6899 and S. 3478.

paragraphs: The idea of using the tax code to achieve energy policy goals and other national objectives is not new but, historically, U.S. federal energy tax policy promoted the exploration and development—the supply of—oil and gas. The 1970s witnessed (1) a significant cutback in the oil and gas industry's tax preferences, (2) the imposition of new excise taxes on oil (some of which were subsequently repealed or expired), and (3) the introduction of numerous tax preferences for energy conservation, the development of alternative fuels, and the commercialization of the technologies for producing these fuels (renewables such as solar, wind, and biomass, and nonconventional fossil fuels such as shale oil and coalbed methane).
Comprehensive energy policy legislation containing numerous tax incentives, and some tax increases on the oil industry, was signed on August 8, 2005 ( P.L. 109-58 ). The law, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, contained about $15 billion in energy tax incentives over 11 years, including numerous tax incentives for the supply of conventional fuels, as well as for energy efficiency, and for several types of alternative and renewable resources, such as solar and geothermal. The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 ( P.L. 109-432 ), enacted in December 2006, provided for one-year extensions of some of these provisions. But some of these energy tax incentives expired on January 1, 2008, while others are about to expire at the end of 2008.
In early December 2007, it appeared that congressional conferees had reached agreement on another comprehensive energy bill, the Energy Independence and Security Act ( H.R. 6 ), and particularly on the controversial energy tax provisions. The Democratic leadership in the 110 th Congress proposed to eliminate or reduce tax subsidies for oil and gas and use the additional revenues to increase funding for their energy policy priorities: energy efficiency and alternative and renewable fuels, that is, reducing fossil fuel demand rather than increasing energy (oil and gas) supply. In addition, congressional leaders wanted to extend many of the energy efficiency and renewable fuels tax incentives that either had expired or were about to expire.
The compromise on the energy tax title in H.R. 6 proposed to raise taxes by about $21 billion to fund extensions and liberalization of existing energy tax incentives. However, the Senate on December 13, 2007, stripped the controversial tax title from its version of the comprehensive energy bill ( H.R. 6 ) and then passed the bill, 86-8, leading to the President's signing of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 ( P.L. 110-140 ), on December 19, 2007. The only tax-related provisions that survived were (1) an extension of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act surtax for one year, raising about $1.5 billion; (2) higher penalties for failure to file partnership returns, increasing revenues by $655 million; and (3) an extension of the amortization period for geological and geophysical expenditures from five to seven years, raising $103 million in revenues. The latter provision was the only tax increase on the oil and gas industry in the final bill. Those three provisions would offset the $2.1 billion in lost excise tax revenues going into the federal Highway Trust Fund as a result of the implementation of the revised Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. The decision to strip the much larger $21 billion tax title stemmed from a White House veto threat and the Senate's inability to get the votes required to end debate on the bill earlier in the day. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) effort to invoke cloture fell short by one vote, in a 59-40 tally.
Since then, the Congress has tried several times to pass energy tax legislation, and thus avoid the impending expiration of several popular energy tax incentives, such as the "wind" energy tax credit under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) §45, which, since its enactment in 1992, has lapsed three times only to be reinstated. Several energy tax bills have passed the House but not the Senate, where on several occasions, the failure to invoke cloture failed to bring up the legislation for consideration. Senate Republicans objected to the idea of raising taxes to offset extension of expiring energy tax provisions, which they consider to be an extension of current tax policy rather than new tax policy. In addition, Senate Republicans objected to raising taxes on the oil and gas industry, such as by repealing the (IRC) §199 deduction, and by streamlining the foreign tax credit for oil companies. The Bush Administration repeatedly threatened to veto these types of energy tax bills, in part because of their proposed increased taxes on the oil and gas industry. Frustrated with the lack of action on energy tax legislation over the last two years, House Democrats introduced and approved several such bills, such as H.R. 5351 , which was approved by the House on February 27, 2008. House Speaker Pelosi and other Democrats sent President Bush a letter February 28, 2008, urging him to reconsider his opposition to the Democratic renewable energy plan, arguing that their energy tax plan would "correct an imbalance in the tax code."
At this writing, a renewed legislative effort is being made to enact energy tax legislation, although the two chambers were moving in different directions on how to bring the legislation to the floor. In the House, energy tax provisions are part of H.R. 6899 , House Democratic leadership's latest draft of broad-based energy policy legislation, the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act. Passed on September 16, 2008, the bill would expand oil and gas drilling offshore by allowing oil and gas exploration and production in areas of the outer continental shelf that are currently off limits, except for waters in the Gulf of Mexico off the Florida coast. Under the bill, states could allow such drilling between 50 and 100 miles offshore, while the federal government could permit drilling from 100 to 200 miles offshore. Revenue from the new offshore leases would be used to assist the development of alternative energy, and would not be shared by the adjacent coastal states. The bill would also repeal the current ban on leasing federal lands for oil shale production if states enact laws providing for such leases and production. H.R. 6899 also would enact a renewable portfolio standard, a requirement that power companies generate 15% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.
subsections: section_title: Energy Tax Provisions in H.R. 6899
paragraphs: The energy tax provisions in H.R. 6899 (Title XIII, the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2008) are largely the same as those in H.R. 5351 , an approximately $18 billion energy tax package that was approved by the House on February 27, 2008. They also include some of the measures in H.R. 6049 , another energy tax bill that was also approved by the House. H.R. 5351 is, in turn, a smaller version of the energy tax title that was dropped from H.R. 3221 in December 2007, but larger than the $16 billion bill approved by the Ways and Means Committee in 2007 ( H.R. 2776 ). However, because H.R. 6899 incorporates some of the incentives of H.R. 6049 , its total cost is higher than the cost of H.R. 5351 : about $19 billion over 10 years, instead of $18 billion.
H.R. 6899 includes several tax incentives for renewable energy that would reduce revenue by an estimated $19 billion over 10 years. At a cost of $6.9 billion over 10 years, it extends a renewable energy production tax credit, covering wind facilities for one additional year, through 2009, and certain other renewable energy production for three years, through 2011, while capping credits for facilities that come into service after 2009. The bill extends for eight years, through 2016, a credit for investing in solar energy and fuel cells, at a cost of $1.8 billion. It also extends the energy-efficient commercial building deduction for five years, the credit for efficiency improvements to existing homes for one year, and a credit for energy-efficient appliances for three years.
The measure provides for the allocation of $2.625 billion in energy conservation bonds, $1.75 billion in clean renewable energy bonds, and $1.75 billion in energy security bonds to finance the installation of natural gas pumps at gas stations; all would be tax-credit bonds, which provide a tax credit in lieu of interest, and projects financed through the bonds would have to comply with Davis-Bacon requirements. It also creates a new tax credit for plug-in electric vehicles, an accelerated recovery period for smart electric meters and grid systems, and provides $1.1 billion in tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration projects. The tax title also includes one non-energy tax subsidy: a $1.1 billion provision to restructure the New York Liberty Zone tax incentives to allow for new transportation projects.
H.R. 6899 is fully offset, raising $19 billion in taxes, including many of the same energy tax increases on oil companies also previously approved by the House. The energy tax provisions in H.R. 6899 are entirely offset, mainly by denying the IRC §199 manufacturing deduction to certain major integrated oil companies (including oil companies controlled by foreign governments—including CITGO ) and freezing the deduction for all other oil and gas producers at the current rate of 6%. Earlier §199 repeal proposals had been criticized for seeking to end the deduction only for U.S.-based major companies, while exempting Venezuelan-controlled CITGO because, not being a crude oil producer, it does not meet the definition of a "major integrated oil and gas producer." The entire provision would raise $13.9 billion over 10 years. Additional revenue—about $4.0 billion over 10 years—would come from a provision to streamline the tax treatment of foreign oil-related income so it is treated the same as foreign oil and gas extraction income.
In addition to the H.R. 6899 , the Republican leadership in the House has introduced its own energy tax bill, H.R. 6566 , which also extends and expands some of the energy tax incentives and contains no tax increases (offsets). The energy tax provisions in this bill are, however, smaller and somewhat narrower than those in H.R. 6899 .
section_title: S. 3478
paragraphs: In the Senate, legislative efforts on energy tax incentives and energy tax extenders center around S. 3478 , the Energy Independence and Investment Act of 2008, a $40 billion energy tax bill offered by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and ranking Republican Charles Grassley. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on September 12 that S. 3478 is "must-pass" legislation. Reid told reporters the energy tax package, which includes extensions of tax incentives for renewable energy, should be prioritized even ahead of the broader energy policy bills being considered, and the rest of the non-energy tax extenders package. Reid said he hopes to bring the bill to the floor during the week of September 15, but noted that the schedule depends on whether Senate Republicans will agree to move to the legislation.
While most of the tax incentives in the bill are extensions of existing policy and are not controversial, the legislation would need to be paid for through new sources of revenue. One proposed offset—which has been previously blocked by Republicans—would repeal the IRC §199 manufacturing deduction for the five major oil and gas producers, raising $13.9 billion over 10 years. The bill also would be paid for through a new 13% excise tax on oil and natural gas pumped from the Outer Continental Shelf, a proposal to eliminate the distinction between foreign oil and gas extraction income and foreign oil-related income, and an extension and increase in the oil spill tax through the end of 2017. In total, tax increases on the oil and gas industry would account for $31 billion of the $40 billion total cost of the legislation. The final major offset would come from a requirement on securities brokers to report on the cost basis for transactions they handle to the Internal Revenue Service, a provision expected to raise about $8 billion in new revenues over 10 years.
The tax offsets, or tax increases in S. 3478 are not without controversy, however, particularly the repeal of the IRC §199 manufacturing deduction for the five major oil and gas producers, as discussed previously. Several times the House has approved energy tax legislation, and several times in the Senate such legislation failed a cloture vote and thus could not be brought to the floor for debate.
As noted above, Republicans have in the past objected to the idea of raising taxes to offset extension of expiring energy tax provisions, which they consider to be an extension of current tax policy rather than new tax policy. In addition, some Senate Republicans have objected to raising taxes on the oil and gas industry, particularly by repealing the IRC §199 deduction. The Bush Administration threatened to also veto any energy tax bill that would increase taxes on the oil and gas industry. At this writing, it appears that inclusion of the §199 deduction repeal as an offset might preclude the energy tax bill from coming to the Senate floor—some believe that it would fail another cloture vote—so this provision might not survive the process.
Finally, the debate in the Senate over energy tax incentives and energy tax extenders is seen as potentially involving three other separate proposals: (1) The Gang of 20 proposal or "New Energy Reform Act of 2008"(this has not yet been introduced); (2) A Bingaman/Baucus bill (also not formally introduced); and (3) the Republican "Gas Price Reduction Act" (introduced by Senator McConnell as Senate Amendment 5108).
A side-by-side comparison of H.R. 6899 and S. 3478 is in Table 1 . Revenue estimates were generated by the Joint Committee on Taxation.