Talk:Energy Policy Act of 2005

message: I have yet to find a source for the contents of the final bill, or even a halfway-detailed summary!  This is very frustrating, and I would appreciate anyone finding such sources to at least add them to External Links. Simesa 13:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Contents of Bill

message: Can we please try to avoid demagoguing this one?  Provides massive subsidies for oil companies which are already competative and profitable and support Republicans financially. Really.  This statement, as it is, has no place in a neutral encyclopedia. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed.  A least rephrase it.  Anything going into the background of nay organization should be out, or else we would have to explain how the universe works in every article.  Just limit it to "Provides subsisies for oil companies" and leave out the background on the oil companies.  I'm tired and not making much sense, sorry.  Dboyz-x.etown 07:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A request

message: "Provides massive subsidies for oil companies which are already competative and profitable and support Republicans financially."
Come on!
:I agree.  I think I removed that portion though. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:36, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
* The link for the DST patch for Windows computers is for a $500 application and is what amounts to be an ad. Should this be on a wikipedia article?
:I fixed this a while ago, but didn't notice until now that the POV tag was still on the article. Since there seem to be no remaining POV issues I just now removed the tag. 131.179.64.200 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality?

message: The article Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005_Vote has been recommended for Deletion.  If interested, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005_Vote 
Simesa 12:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes page up for Deletion

message: As it is written contains a LOT of weasel words.  It needs to be rewritten with some more specifics. · Katefan0(scribble) 13:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Also as it is written, there are seven criticisms, 5 of which are democratic criticisms, 2 of which are republican criticisms.  Of all the criticisms, one was rebuked - a Republican criticism.  Aside from the fact that criticisms and opinion have NO place in an encyclopedia, why is the only rebuke in response to the Republican criticism?  This article has no balance, and serves more as a piece of propaganda that it does a fact-based article.
The last paragraph states 
The bill did not include provisions for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) even though some Republicans claim "access to the abundant oil reserves in ANWR would strengthen America's energy independence without harming the environment."[10] This claim, however, has been rebuffed by scientific and oil industry experts.[11] [12]
 Clicking on the links to References 11 and 12 indicate the articles do not support the claim that references them. The first is a general article from National Geogrpahic that discusses an arctic oil spill. The other is a Department of Energy annual report. There is no link to any article by the scientific community to suport the claim. There is no link to an oil industry article to support the claim. I would suggest that this paragraph be deleted.baronvon
      I concur with baronvon's statement above.  The two footnotes provided for the "rebuffed"
      statement are beneficial reads to be sure, but they don't seem to support the claim that
      references them.Elwood harvey (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms section

message: I believe that as of 2010 the wording of the update to USC Title 42 changed.  The details tying these together are at Halliburton Loophole.  Is it worth updating this indicating there's new wording and is this the right place to do the updates?Halliburton Loophole--Johnny (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Halliburton Loophole

message: What is this stuff?  Would any other encyclopedia include it? My opinion is that it should be deleted. Simesa 01:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Legislative Process"

message: Energy Policy Act of 2005 Vote should definitely be merged here.  Most of the information, especially the parts the main contributor to the article thinks is most important, can be recorded in one, or possibly two external links (which is where information of this type should be).  The analysis needs not be so long and should be on the main page, while the legislative process section in the main article is more record keeping that need not be in here.
Considering the vfd discussion had a consensus to either delete or merge, assuming the article hasn't been fixed up (which it obviously hasn't and probably can't), I'd nominate this for vfd again if there's no movement.  The analysis can probably be rewritten better from scratch than salvaged from what is currently there.  Telso 05:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the keep votes during the earlier VFD debate were predicated on the article improving. It has not. I'd support another round at AFD. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I vote for condensation and merger. Keep the analysis section (but clean it up). Summarize the objections to the bill, without noting who made them. That, along with the voting records, is something for which there are good sources outside of Wikipedia. --ChrisWinter 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge "Vote" Article"

message: In it's currently form, it looks like the article is 25% what's in the bill (including what was part of the original house bill that wasn't in the final version); 65% arguments against the bill [general against + 2 summaries of Senate floor speaches against]; 10% legislative history summary. For balance, it desperately needs 2 summaries of speaches from Senate Supporters, (preferably chairmen of the commitees) and a general in favor. 168.166.196.40 19:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not balanced

message: I removed this from the list of provisions, and replaced it with what seemed to me to be the two most damning bits of the Post article: the incentives for drilling in the Gulf and exemptions from water standards for oil and gas companies.  I agree that the Act was not nearly as renewable-friendly as advertised, but to just say that it gives subsidies to oil companies is not NPOV. Kyle Cronan 08:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Provides subsidies for oil companies

message: I've added a POV tag because most of the page is arguments against the bill and there's no coresponding arguments in favor of it. Jon 15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Defintely a step in the right direction. Jon 15:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I removed the comment "you only listed 13 senators, not 14". I'm not convinced that the senators should be identified but
the comment needed to be moved to here.Tiles (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of senators

message: I disagree with recent edits that remove all references to Obama using the bill to direct criticism at McCain, especially since it has kept the criticism leveled by Hillary Clinton towards Obama.  I also believe that it is not in conflict with WP:SYNTHESIS since the original writing of it summarizes the sources to make it readable since the original source is a voting record.  According to Wikipedia, "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. "  If you want to clean up some of the wording (changing attacks to criticizes) that is acceptable, but removing most of the information (and all the sources) then following that up with more editing because the section needs to be sourced seems odd to me.  I believe the original section, with some word changes to make more neutral, was well referenced (1 AP article and 2 official senate voting records) and was an important addition to the criticisms directly caused by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Cwagmire (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of problems there.  Obama's criticism of McCain had nothing to do with the Energy Policy Act, which is what this article is about so there is no reason to include it here.  The ref is an opinion editorial which criticizes Obama for voting for this bill, but that is simply rehashing the criticism that we already addressed with the Clinton quote.  This section can't simple become a coat rack of criticisms of Obama (which have absolutely nothing to do with this article anyway).  The last sentence is especially problematic as it is pure editorializing and yes, is synthesis. Placing two verified yet unrelated facts ("Obama criticized McCain" and "Obama voted for this bill") next to each other in order to draw a conclusion is the very definition of WP:SYNTH.  But that's a moot point as the initial Obama criticism of McCain had nothing to do with this bill and must therefore be removed.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree.  If we go with your edit, we leave an unreferenced quote criticizing Obama, made by Hillary Clinton, while removing a similar criticism (regardless of how ignorant it was) of John McCain by Obama (also note this criticism is well documented).  And to say the Obama criticism of McCain was not about this bill is difficult for me to believe.  Google "Cheney energy bill" and you will find an abundance of information on the 2005 energy bill.  The Obama campaign and his supporters can spin it all they want, but it was obviously a reference to this bill, especially since this bill is what gave tax breaks to oil companies and that is the bulk of the speech Obama was giving.  I won't put it back in, while I truly believe it is inappropriate to only leave an undocumented Hillary Clinton quote, and as such this is simply me noting my objection to such an action.  Cwagmire (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Changes to Criticism section

message: :buildings agree to curtail usage at peak times for a premium - should this be curtail usage at peak times for a discount/rebate or perhaps curtail usage at peak times, or pay a premium? --User:BrianFennell 15:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Awkward language

message: One might note that the legislation enacted that the change to the US rules would occur on March 1st 2007. It did not say at what time or times (presumably at 00:00 local winter time?).  For clock change purposes, the instant of a rule change is immaterial, provided that it is safely within one season both before & after.  But, for some purposes, there can be a requirement to use the now-current rules for all dates; JavaScript is an example (see ISO/IEC 16262 or ECMA-262).  It could not, therefore, have been legally proper in the USA to run JavaScript in pre-Vista Windows across 2007-03-01 00:00:00 LCT. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to daylight saving time

message: The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), Title VII, Subtitle G (Sections 791 to 797), was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct).  --Nopetro (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Diesel Emissions Reduction Act

message: Substituted at 14:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Energy Policy Act of 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110303163112/http://www.epa.gov:80/oust/fedlaws/publ_109-058.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/publ_109-058.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nei.org/documents/Energy_Bill_2005.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710094024/http://www.nei.org/documents/Energy_Bill_2005.pdf to http://www.nei.org/documents/Energy_Bill_2005.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Energy Policy Act of 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081125144426/http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/09042003hearing1062/print.htm to http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/09042003hearing1062/print.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926225149/http://www.utilipoint.com/issuealert/article.asp?ID=2789 to http://www.utilipoint.com/issuealert/article.asp?ID=2789
*Added  tag to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_557416.html
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20081024024614/http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/factsheets/highlightsenergypolicyactof2005page3/ to http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/factsheets/highlightsenergypolicyactof2005page3/
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20081024024649/http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/factsheets/highlightsenergypolicyactof2005page6/ to http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/factsheets/highlightsenergypolicyactof2005page6/
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20081024024710/http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/factsheets/highlightsenergypolicyactof2005page5/ to http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/factsheets/highlightsenergypolicyactof2005page5/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120628180426/http://www.capitalreviewgroup.com/energy-certification/179d-tax-deduction/ to http://www.capitalreviewgroup.com/energy-certification/179d-tax-deduction/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051122125425/http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=95929&format=text to http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=95929&format=text
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050711062822/http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking to http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1069020&tw=wn_wire_story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050809003615/http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/energywatch.htm to http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/energywatch.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051028060427/http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/ to http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302072438/http://weblog.infoworld.com/sustainableit/archives/2007/02/study_daylight.html to http://weblog.infoworld.com/sustainableit/archives/2007/02/study_daylight.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The states regulate fracking so that particular provision was inconsequential. The most significant aspect of this law was creating the modern ethanol industry after it was initially a small industry that grew as a replacement for MTBE and then due to the energy crisis from 2001-2008 it was seen as a way to reduce dependence on imported oil. Clam chowdah (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fracking provision inconsequential 

message: The most consequential aspect of this law was the expansion of the ethanol industry. Obama and his most important backer Tom Daschle were big supporters of ethanol and ethanol is very important in Illinois and SD and Iowa which was the state that jumpstarted his 2008 campaign. Ethanol is seen as a negative in New Hampshire and so it did make sense for Hillary to oppose this legislation from a political perspective. Clam chowdah (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama ethanol