PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 20, 2005
Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act of 2005 - States that during any presidentially-declared energy emergency it is unlawful to sell crude oil, gasoline, or petroleum distillates in, or for use in, the area involved at a price that: (1) is unconscionably excessive; or (2) indicates the seller is taking unfair advantage of the circumstances to increase prices unreasonably.
Makes it unlawful to: (1) report to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) false or misleading data and information regarding the wholesale price of crude oil, gasoline, or petroleum distillates; or (2) use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of crude oil, gasoline, or petroleum distillates at wholesale, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, in contravention of FTC-prescribed rules and regulations.
Authorizes the President to declare a federal energy emergency if the health, safety, welfare, or economic well-being of American citizens is at risk because there exists either: (1) an actual or imminent shortage of adequate supplies of crude oil, gasoline, or petroleum distillates due to a disruption in the national distribution system; or (2) significant pricing anomalies in national energy markets for such products.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Empowers the FTC and state attorneys general to enforce this Act.
Prescribes maximum civil and criminal penalties for violations of this Act.
Instructs the FTC to: (1) facilitate price transparency in wholesale crude oil and petroleum product markets; and (2) conclude a memorandum of understanding with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and other appropriate agencies relating to information sharing.
Instructs the Comptroller General to investigate periodically the extent to which major oil companies and automobile manufacturers have invested in alternative fuels production, infrastructure, and technology development.
Directs the National Academy of Sciences to review expenditures and activities by major U.S. companies to protect the energy supply system from terrorist attacks, international supply disruptions, and natural disasters, and ensure a stable and reasonably priced supply of such products to consumers.
People & committees
Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA] · D–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S10238-10239)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1735 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1735 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1735 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1735 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.