Continuing a legislative effort that began in the 107th Congress, House and Senate confereeson November 17, 2003, reached agreement on an omnibus energy bill ( H.R. 6 , H.Rept.108-375 ), which would be the first comprehensive energy legislation in more than 10 years. OnNovember 18, the House approved the conference report by a vote of 246-180, but on November 21,a cloture motion to limit debate in the Senate failed, 57-40. On February 12, 2004, SenatorDomenici introduced a revised version of the bill ( S. 2095 ) with a lower estimated costand without a controversial provision on the fuel additive MTBE. Including tax provisions, S. 2095 is estimated by its supporters to cost less than $14 billion, in contrast to the $31billion estimated for the H.R. 6 conference report. The two bills contain identical provisions to change the regulatory requirements for thewholesale electric market, including repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA). They would also mandate increasing levels of ethanol production through 2012 but allow regionsto opt out under certain conditions. Use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as a domesticgasoline additive would be banned by the end of 2014, but the President could void the ban and astate could authorize continued use. Under the H.R. 6 conference report, producers ofMTBE and renewable fuels would be granted protection (a "safe harbor") from product liabilitylawsuits, but that provision was dropped in S. 2095 . Both bills would provide $18 billion in loan guarantees for construction of a natural gaspipeline from Alaska to Alberta, where it would connect to the existing Midwestern pipeline system. Royalty reductions would be provided for marginal oil and gas wells on federal lands and the outercontinental shelf. Provisions are also included to increase access by energy projects to federal lands. Several new statutory efficiency standards would be established for consumer andcommercial products and appliances, and other standards could be set by the Department of Energy(DOE). For motor vehicles, funding would be authorized for the National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration (NHTSA) to set Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) levels as provided incurrent law. The House version of H.R. 6 , which passed April 11, 2003, included a keycomponent of the Bush Administration's energy strategy: opening the Arctic National WildlifeRefuge (ANWR) to oil and gas exploration and development. But the Senate version, passed July31, 2003, did not include the ANWR language, and the conference report and S. 2095 would leave ANWR off-limits to drilling. This report summarizes the major non-tax provisions of the H.R. 6 conferenceagreement and notes the changes included in S. 2095 . Table 1 lists annual fundingauthorizations in the bills, which total about $71 billion over 10 years. (The likely cost of thefunding authorizations has not yet been estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.) For adiscussion of the tax provisions in the bills, see CRS Issue Brief IB10054, Energy Tax Policy . For a comparison of the House and Senate versions of H.R. 6 , see CRS Report RL32033, Omnibus Energy Legislation (H.R. 6): Side-by-side Comparison of Non-taxProvisions . Many provisions in the H.R. 6 conference report are similar to those of anomnibus energy bill that the Senate debated but did not pass, S. 14 . For a comparisonof major provisions of S. 14 and the House and Senate versions of H.R. 6, seeCRS Report RL32078, Omnibus Energy Legislation: Comparison of Major Provisions in House-and Senate-Passed Versions of H.R. 6, Plus S. 14. Electricity Regulation. Historically, electric utilities have been regarded as naturalmonopolies requiring regulation at the state and federal levels. The Energy Policy Act of 1992(EPACT, P.L. 102-486 ) removed a number of regulatory barriers to electricity generation in an effortto increase supply and introduce competition, but further legislation has been introduced and debatedto resolve remaining issues affecting transmission, reliability, and other restructuring concerns. In part, the electricity section of the conference report and S. 2095 would repealthe Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) and establish mandatory reliability standards.Standard market design (SMD), a proposed system to provide uniform market procedures forwholesale electric power transactions, would be remanded to the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC); no rule would be allowed before the end of FY2006. The Department ofEnergy (DOE) would identify "transmission corridors" that require new construction or upgrading.The bills would grant eminent domain authority to the federal government for construction ofinterstate power lines on these transmission corridors if the states did not act in time. (For a discussion of the policy context and current law, see CRS Report RL32178 , Summaryof Electricity Provision in the Conference Report on H.R. 6. For additional discussionon these issues, see CRS Report RL32728 , Electric Utility Regulatory Reform: Issues for the 109thCongress ; and CRS Report RL32133 , Federal Merger Review Authority .) Renewable Fuel Standard and MTBE. The H.R. 6 conference report and S. 2095 would amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate the requirement that reformulatedgasoline (RFG) contain 2% oxygen to reduce automotive emissions, a requirement which promptedthe widespread use of MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) and, to a lesser degree, ethanol. Instead,the bills would establish a new requirement that an increasing amount of gasoline contain renewablefuels such as ethanol. The bills would require that 3.1 billion gallons of renewable fuel be used in2005, increasing to 5.0 billion gallons by 2012 (as compared to 2.1 billion gallons used in 2002). However, concerns have been raised that this requirement could significantly raise the pump pricefor gasoline in some areas. Because of concerns over drinking water contamination by MTBE (a major competitor withethanol), the bills would ban the use of MTBE in motor vehicle fuel, except in states that specificallyauthorize its use, not later than December 31, 2014. The ban has two possible exceptions. First, EPAmay allow MTBE in motor fuel up to 0.5 percent by volume, in cases that the Administratordetermines to be appropriate; and second, the President may make a determination, not later thanJune 30, 2014, that the restrictions on the use of MTBE shall not take place. The bills would alsoauthorize $2.0 billion to assist the conversion of merchant MTBE production facilities to theproduction of other fuel additives. Further, the bills would preserve the reductions in emissions oftoxic substances achieved by the RFG program. One of the most controversial provisions in the H.R. 6 conference report is theestablishment of a "safe harbor" from product liability lawsuits for producers of MTBE andrenewable fuels. The safe harbor provision -- which was excluded from S. 2095 --would protect anyone in the product chain, from manufacturers down to retailers, from liability forcleanup of MTBE and renewable fuels or for personal injury or property damage based on the natureof the product. (That legal approach has been used in California to require refiners to shoulderliability for MTBE cleanup.) The safe harbor would be retroactive to September 5, 2003. Prior to thatdate, five lawsuits had been filed. After that date, at least 150 suits were filed, on behalf of 210communities in 15 different states. (For additional information, see CRS Report RL32865(pdf) , Renewable Fuels and MTBE: AComparison of Selected Legislative Initiatives ; CRS Report RL30369, Fuel Ethanol: Backgroundand Public Policy Issues ; and CRS Report RL32787 , MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and DrinkingWater Issues .) Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy. One of the first initiatives designed to have a significanteffect on oil demand was passage of corporate average fuel economy standards (CAFE) in theEnergy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA, P.L. 94-163 ). In the years since, there havebeen periodic calls for toughening or broadening the CAFE standards -- especially as consumerdemand has turned more to light-duty trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs). A final rule mandating higher CAFE standards for light-duty trucks was issued April 1, 2003,by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), but congressional interest in theissue continues. The bill reported from conference and S. 2095 would require a CAFEstudy, would prescribe several considerations that must be weighed in determining maximumfeasible fuel economy, would authorize $2 million annually during FY2004-FY2008 for NHTSArulemakings and CAFE analysis, and would extend the existing fuel economy credit for themanufacture of alternative-fueled vehicles. (For additional information, see CRS Issue Brief IB90122, Automobile and Light Truck FuelEconomy: The CAFE Standards .) Nuclear Accident Liability. Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act nuclear liabilitysystem is one of the top nuclear items on the energy agenda. Under Price-Anderson, commercialreactor accident damages are paid through a combination of private-sector insurance and a nuclearindustry self-insurance system. Liability is capped at the maximum coverage available under thesystem, currently about $10.9 billion. Price-Anderson also authorizes the Department of Energy toindemnify its nuclear contractors. The limit on DOE contractor liability is the same as forcommercial reactors, except when the limit for commercial reactors drops because of a decline inthe number of covered reactors.