Talk:Energy Policy Act of 2005

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents of Bill[edit]

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)[reply]

Viewing the Bill

  • Visit www.senate.gov
  • Go into Legislation and Records
  • Click on Active Legislation
  • Select HR.6 next to Energy bill
  • Choose Text of Legislation
  • Click #6, which is the final enrolled bill
  • To load the entire text, click on Printer Friendly Display

Edits on morning of August 9[edit]

I must say I am astounded at the quick response!

69.87.155.4's information is appreciated, but not sourced! I have requested a source.

Ben's link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8748924/ is already broken. Once the dust settles and this gets composed into an article, a different cite will be needed. Simesa 14:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From 69.87...
The senate.gov web site suggests not linking directly, I suppose due to it being some kind of a database that has different links. I think the bill would be worth uploading to the wikipedia (I think registered members can do that)...
Reading the full 1,724 pages is out of the question and would require specialized knowledge of the laws modified as well. We need a detailed summary. I have written the House Energy Committee and asked for one.
To indent, place a : or :: in front of each paragraph. To sign your posting, place a ~~~~ after your last sentence. Try going to WP:sandbox - from there, in the "More info" box, you can start the multi-part "Editing tutorial". Simesa 18:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Simesa, don't hold your breath. I've been told that nobody on the Hill or even at the Congressional Research Service has complied any sort of comprehensive analysis yet. I'll put up what I have gotten myself at User:Katefan0/Energy Documents in a few minutes. I'd update it myself but I just don't have time this week. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:23, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I've posted an analysis by a former energy committee staffer now at Columbia U, one by the Republican Policy Committee, and one by Senate Energy. None of them are comprehensive. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Vote tally[edit]

I think it's not really appropriate to have a vote tally here. Maybe at Wikisource or somesuch. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:17, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Someone proposed a vote tally? Why would you have one on this? This Act has major repercussions on the US energy industries and probably on world-wide energy choices. Just because the article is in an unacceptable state today (really its first day) doesn't mean that it won't be a good and important article in a week's time. Simesa 18:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody proposed it, it's in the article. There's an entire section with a lengthy delineation of how everybody in the Senate voted. It's not appropriate for the article and takes up too much space. I agree that it's in its infant stages and will improve much over time. I don't think I've ever argued counter to that. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
The vote tally is relevant because it distinguishes which senators (and states) were in opposition to this bill. It shows that certain parts of the country, namely New England and the West Coast were not in favor of the bill. It shows how votes changed after the conference committee. In shows how the Conneticut senators changes from "not voting" to "no" after the committee, which suggests that they were hoping for a change in the bill that did not occur. It also shows how Senator Clinton changed her vote from Yes to No, which happened to agree with the senior senator from New York. Perhaps they had a chat about why they voted each way. Without this information, it would take much more time for a person to find out how their senators voted, and who else was in agreement. I hope that something to like this is also available for the DR-CAFTA vote. Particularly interesting on that one would be who was the last person to vote (thus passing it through the house). If only ONE of the members of the house who voted YES had voted NO, the treaty wouldn't have passed. Americanus 19:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's useful information from a citizen's perspective, but it's just not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, which should be the highlights of an event, person or etc., not every shred of information available. Instead, I would propose that we just place a link to the vote tally on Thomas or something. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Votes are the highlights. Those votes are a significant factor in distinguishing this law from the bills that were pushed for 4.5 years. ... If the article were very long (and I've seen some very long, very good articles) then I think a separate article on the vote of could be created, and the house members included as well. I think the main reason it looks long is because there needs to be a lot more detail on the contents of the law, with each major component having a subsection, and possibly separate articles such as "US Ethanol Policy". Americanus 19:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, a text dump of a vote versus a link with the exact same information is not a highlight. I will resist any attempts to turn the links back into a text dump. The article is already going to be huge, there's no reason to make it even longer when a link will suffice. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
There does not need to be an article just for a text dump of the vote (Energy Policy Act of 2005 Vote. If you create it, I will nominate it for VfD. A link from this article is sufficient. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

A request[edit]

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)[reply]

Stabenow[edit]

There's absolutely no reason to include a random comment by Stabenow, who is a Democrat, and not a particularly prominent one at that (Harry Reid I could see), when no other lawmaker comments have been included in the article. She wasn't even a member of the conference committee. Voting on the bill doesn't make a lawmaker's comment relevant; most everybody voted on this thing at one point or another. Does that mean we should include comments by the 431 members of the House and Senate who voted on the conference report? Because I assure you, they all released statements. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:14, August 9, 2005 (UTC))

I don't have a problem of not refering to Stabenow. On the other hand, the drilling ban is part of the act that has received a lot of media attention over the past few years in the Great Lakes states, and it is in the bill, so it is definitely relevant for both reasons... 69.87.155.92
Please indent using : or :: and sign by using ~~~~. Simesa 18:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the problem, most likely, is that this article is extremely unformed at present. Any comprehensive article should definitely treat the ANWR issue, and once a proper section has been built up I think THEN a comment by Stabenow (and others) might be appropriate. But as it stands, just sort of hanging out there, it's not really useful and even sort of gives the appearance of unbalancing the article. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Is ANWR protected in this bill, or is the bill mute to ANWR? In either case, I think that both should be mentioned. Since the Great Lakes Drilling ban is actually language in the bill, it needs to be included in the article. · Americanus
It is mentioned briefly currently, but probably a separate section should be developed that treats the debate over ANWR. Right now it's mentioned in the article as: Items left out of the final bill, in order to get it passed, included limited liability for producers of the MTBE gasoline-additive and permitted drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:35, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
I think a section with a title link "ANWR Controversy" which details the history of how ANWR was in and out of the bill, and then a link to the ANWR article (of course). · Americanus(scribble)
I read yesterday that various congressmen intend to attach an amendment permitting drilling for oil in ANWR to the upcoming yearly authorization bill. This will likely be a major on-going battle. There is already a multi-paragraph section on "ANWR and Oil" in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - this discussion probably belongs there, as drilling is definitley not part of EPA-2005. Simesa 19:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't part of it ultimately, but only because it had to be dropped to get the thing passed. Given the contentious nature of its involvement with this bill, I think it's entirely appropriate to have a section on it. Doesn't have to be huge, but it should get more than a cursory mention. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality?[edit]

"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)[reply]

Costs of the Law[edit]

Cost estimates for each provision in the bill need to be included with the relevant provisions. Some provisions costs under $1 million, while others may cost over $1,000 million. Provisions should be ordered by cost, from most costly to least costly. Americanus 07:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For a bill this size that would be ridiculous - you'd have no sense of flow to the provisions at all. And the data flat isn't available yet (Katefan0 is a reporter in D.C. and would know). Having related provisions listed together is better. I suggest those most of interest to the average reader first.
Even listing the Titles of the Act in order would break up related provisions.
Plus, why would you want nuclear at the top? The next plant probably won't even break ground until 2010.
Wikipedia is never going to get a complete list of the "hundreds of provisions" in this 1,724 page bill. The best we can do is to cover the important ones.
The article isn't done, and the current order isn't good, but until we get a comprehensive summary of the bill's contents it will suffice.
Simesa 11:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care whether things get listed by money or otherwise. I think the bullet list of provisions is a temporary stopgap measure at best. Once we all collectively figure out what the most important provisions are, then I think it should be turned into text. Bullet points are nice for a quick-hit, but not really encyclopedic style. So once we get that figured out, it should be textified and after that, it won't really matter what got how much. · Katefan0(scribble) 12:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Moved Comments by Senators[edit]

I was going to move the comments by Wyden and Clinton to "Votes", only to find they were there already!

First, Wikipedia is not a political blog. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Second, the remarks were not balanced by comments from any of the three-quarters of senators who voted for the Act.

While I hope to vote for Mrs. Clinton in 2008, that does not change Wikipedia's basis! Simesa 11:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not appropriate to have entire blocks of text of peoples' comments. As I said above, more than 400 people voted for this thing; should we include portions of all of their statements? For the record, that's what we have Wikiquote for. If you want to include one or two pertinent comments inside a subject-specific section (like an evetual section on ANWR), that would be okay. But we can't just dump generic quotes in there from one or two people, because that would tend to unbalance the article unless we include quotes from everybody, which is obviously impossible. · Katefan0(scribble) 12:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Votes page up for Deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

Criticisms section[edit]

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)
   
     Since it appears that nobody has refuted the statements above by baronvon and myself, I've added a "failed verification"
     flag to these two footnotes.Elwood harvey (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halliburton Loophole[edit]

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?[1]--Johnny (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Halliburton Loophole

Deleted "Allocations" (Authorizations) section[edit]

The only thing worse in an encyclopedia than no information is Wrong information. Data from the failed 2003 bill should not be considered a priori to be the same as in the 2005 bill. Especially since [1] only adds up to a little over $4.25 billion for nuclear which, with a DOE reactor added in, closely matches the numbers in [2] - both references already in the article. Simesa 20:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the event the data is nebulous - and firm "rigt" information isn't likely to exist - our obligation is to present the best information available and then to "qualify" the data. Each item on that list is sourced. Are they guesses - yes. But the general scale of the allocations is critical to understanding the bill. Hiding a huges nuclear program in a bill advertised as a renewable energy bill is dishonest - to avoid that dishonest - we must provide relative values of scale. Benjamin Gatti
The numbers you have are garbage. We have exact information only for nuclear, which I've included. No, we don't do "best guesses" in an encyclopedia - there are legal reasons why not! No one is hiding anything on nuclear - in fact it's the ONLY part of the bill we have FULL information for! (And that may be because I requested NEI to compile and print it.) Go look for conspiracies somewhere there might actually be one. Simesa 01:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I now have a detailed summary at my fingertips. I will try to include the specific allocations as I have time, possibly tomorrow. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

12.3b cost[edit]

Simesa, saw your question in the edit summary. This gets confusing real quick, but the 12.3b cost is what the Congressional Budget Office scored the bill through 2015, so just adding up accounts isn't necessarily going to get you that number. I think the straight total is $11.6 b in tax incentives over 11 years, which includes $2.8 b for fossil fuel production and $1.3 b for conservation and energy efficiency. But, of course, straight totals don't always account for the entire "cost" of something. Here's the CBO link: [3] · Katefan0(scribble) 20:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

"Legislative Process"[edit]

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)[reply]

Merge "Vote" Article"[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Not balanced[edit]

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)[reply]

Provides subsidies for oil companies[edit]

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)[reply]

POV[edit]

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)[reply]

The caption "tax breaks" is slanted because it implies that the government is "giving" someone a "break", with overtones of luck or favoritism. It sounds like a handout, and the media frequently uses this phrase with exactly that intended slanted effect. Tax opponents would prefer the term "tax relief". This slants the other way, suggesting taxes are a burden and tax reductions make that burden slightly less. An accurate term without either slant would be "tax reduction" so I am changing the caption accordingly. 129.219.55.204 15:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defintely a step in the right direction. Jon 15:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Halloween really relevant?[edit]

I don't see the importance of noting that the change to Daylight Saving Time is going to extend the amount of daylight on Halloween. There used to be a sentence following it noting how the Act would result in DST time change sometimes occurring 2 days before election day. This line was removed, although it seems to be quite a bit more relevant than Halloween. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.146.101.26 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

One of the main arguments of supporters of extending the fall back time actually was to give one more hour of evening daylight on holloween. Jon 15:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, this silly Halloween comment is used only in reference to alleged controversy. This has no place in an encyclopedia.

Number of senators[edit]

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)[reply]

Recent Changes to Criticism section[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


Awkward language[edit]

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)[reply]

Change to daylight saving time[edit]

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)[reply]

Diesel Emissions Reduction Act[edit]

The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), Title VII, Subtitle G (Sections 791 to 797), was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). [4] --Nopetro (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Energy Policy Act of 2005/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class==

Start class. Should go up to B class. However, this article needs more references.EECavazos 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==WP Tax Priority==

Mid priority because about a current national tax law scheme, high traffic(?).EECavazos 18:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 18:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fracking provision inconsequential[edit]

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)[reply]

Obama ethanol[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005&oldid=1207114483"