It had three energy efficiency titles, which addressed buildings, industry, and federal agencies. Floor action on S. 1392 was halted in September 2013. Often referred to as the Shaheen-Portman bill 2013, it was a trimmed-down version of S. 761 from the 112 th Congress. The bill contained voluntary provisions and was designed to be deficit-neutral. Virtually all debate on the bill was focused on floor amendments. The sponsor of S.Amdt. As introduced, S. 2074 comprised all the core provisions of S. 1392 , with the addition of the text from 10 floor amendments proposed for S. 1392 . S. 2262 Provisions

		Overview

Introduced on April 28, 2014, the text of S. 2262 is identical to that of S. 2074 , except that the amount of budget offsets in section 501 was increased from $638 million to $720 million (for FY2014 through FY2018). S. 2262 includes core provisions from S. 1392 , and the text of 10 proposed amendments to S. 1392 that were incorporated into S. 2074 . Title V would provide a budgetary offset for bill authorizations. The EISA provision set a timetable to cut fossil energy use in new federal buildings (and major federal building renovations)—with a target to eliminate fossil energy use in new buildings by 2030. The provision has proven difficult to implement, and DOE has not yet issued a rule to enforce it. Section 431 would also modify other EISA requirements. Section 431 would still tighten some energy efficiency guidelines and building codes for new federal buildings. Supporters of Section 431 claim that the existing prohibition is unworkable, citing DOE's inability to develop a regulation to implement the law. Opponents to Section 431 say that the amendment would undermine federal leadership-by-example on net-zero energy buildings and on the effort to reduce federal greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Savings Estimate

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), which has publicly stated support for the bill, used a bottom-up analysis to estimate the energy-saving potential for each provision of S. 2074 . CBO Cost Estimate

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that S. 2262 would provide a net decrease in the deficit of $12 million over the period from FY2014 through FY2024. Support and Opposition11

Bill sponsors report that over 270 businesses, associations, and trade groups—from the National Association of Manufacturers to the Chamber of Commerce—support S. 2262 . The Obama Administration has not yet issued a Statement of Administration Policy on S. 2262 . However, it did issue one for S. 1392 , which expressed support for that bill. In opposition to S. 2262 , Heritage Action—an advocacy group affiliated with the Heritage Foundation—argues that the incentives in the bill
would burden taxpayers and consumers alike while producing no tangible benefits. Senate Floor Action

S. 2262 was introduced on April 28, 2014. Included among those five potential energy-related amendments were proposals to: (1) approve the Keystone XL pipeline, (2) facilitate approval of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, (3) prohibit EPA from requiring carbon capture technology on coal-fired power plants, (4) reduce the value of the social cost of carbon, and (5) prevent the establishment of a carbon tax. 6 . In floor action on May 12, 2014, the bill was called up for a cloture vote to close debate. Thus, the final vote tally was 55-36, and the Majority leader entered a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on S. 2262 .
S. 2262 has four energy efficiency titles, which address buildings, industry, federal agencies, and certain regulatory measures. Title V would provide a budgetary offset for bill authorizations. The bill was derived directly from S. 1392, often referred to as the Shaheen-Portman bill of 2013. During the first session, floor action on S. 1392 was halted by a push for votes on controversial non-energy amendments. Many energy amendments were also prepared for S. 1392, but floor action stopped before formal consideration.
In the second session, anticipating the potential for further procedural battles, bill sponsors sought to expand the S. 1392 framework. The aim of expanding the bill was to secure enough additional votes to address the potential for a filibuster by ensuring sufficient votes for cloture on debate. The expanded bill was introduced as S. 2074. It contains all the core provisions of S. 1392, and the text of 10 bipartisan amendments that had been proposed for S. 1392 in floor action during 2013. The text of S. 2262 is identical to that of S. 2074, except that the amount of budget offsets in section 501 was increased from $638 million to $720 million (for FY2014 through FY2018).
This report reviews the provisions of S. 2262, highlights the most controversial bill provision, and identifies potential amendments to the bill.
The most controversial provision in S. 2262 is section 431. That section is an updated version of S.Amdt. 1917 to S. 1392 (Hoeven-Manchin amendment). Section 431 would repeal an existing requirement to eliminate fossil energy use in new federal buildings by 2030. DOE has found the provision difficult to implement, and has not yet issued a rule to enforce it. In place of that requirement, section 431 would tighten energy efficiency guidelines and building codes for new federal buildings—but to a lesser degree. Supporters assert that the existing prohibition is unworkable, citing DOE's inability to implement it and the "more feasible" goals in section 431. Opponents claim that the amendment would undermine federal leadership-by-example on net-zero energy buildings and on the effort to reduce federal greenhouse gas emissions.
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), which has publicly stated support for the bill, estimates an energy-saving potential of 1.8 quadrillion Btu (quads) by 2030, with an associated cost-saving potential of $16.2 billion. S. 2262 was designed to be deficit neutral. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that it would provide a net decrease in the federal budget deficit of $12 million over the period from FY2014 through FY2024.
Bill sponsors reported that over 270 businesses, associations, and trade groups—from the National Association of Manufacturers to the Chamber of Commerce—support S. 2262. The Obama Administration expressed support for S. 1392, but it has not yet issued a Statement of Administration Policy on S. 2262. In opposition to S. 2262, Heritage Action—an advocacy group affiliated with the Heritage Foundation—argues that the incentives in the bill "would burden taxpayers and consumers alike while producing no tangible benefits."
A cloture vote brought S. 2262 up for Senate floor action on May 6, 2014. Floor debate focused on the potential for action on five energy-related amendments, covering the issues of Keystone XL pipeline, liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, power plant carbon capture technology, social cost of carbon, and carbon tax. An effort to forge an agreement to limit amendments did not succeed. On May 12, 2014, a cloture vote to close debate failed (55-36), whereupon the Majority Leader entered a motion to reconsider the vote.