Maureen Lorenzetti
Washington Editor
WASHINGTON, DC, Oct. 18 -- An ethanol mandate, oil and gas production incentives, pipeline safety, and other important industry issues may have to be revisited next year as the fate of sweeping energy reform legislation grows increasingly uncertain.
"The bill's not dead yet, but you can say it's on life support and barely breathing," said a veteran lobbyist Thursday.
First the House, and then the Senate voted Wednesday to fund a temporary government spending measure through Nov. 22, effectively allowing lawmakers to go home to campaign for the November elections. The government's new fiscal year starts Oct. 1, but Congress has yet to complete nearly any of the 13 annual spending bills that set the federal budget.
Leaders of the Republican-led House suggested that lawmakers may return to finish lingering business, most notably the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, but congressional sources called it a "remote" possibility.
Even less likely is the prospect Congress will reconvene before the elections to settle ongoing differences between the House and Senate energy bills, although industry officials and congressional staff said it was premature to rule out even the improbable.
"Conversations will continue on possible compromises to break impasses," said a Senate Energy Committee spokesman. Disagreements remain over a Senate proposal concerning renewable fuel standards in electricity generation, the federal government's role in wholesale power markets, and clean fuels liability issues surrounding ethanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether. Then there's the obvious differences of opinion between the House and the Democrat-controlled Senate over leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and climate change policy.
Before the spending vote Wednesday, energy negotiators appeared to be narrowing differences on what an energy bill should look like, but with the outcome of so many political races in question, consensus remained elusive.
Two years of debate
First on the campaign trail and then as president, George W. Bush called for comprehensive energy legislation; his administration published an energy "blueprint" in May 2001. Most of the White House's energy plan is administrative, not legislative in nature.
The report, praised by industry but damned by environmental groups, offered 105 recommendations on a wide range of energy issues from wellhead to burner tip. Of those initiatives, 73 were directives to federal agencies that encouraged cooperation and emphasized limiting red-tape.
President Bush that same spring also signed executive orders calling on all federal agencies to consider energy policy when implementing major rules; he also said agencies should streamline permitting for energy-related projects.
On the legislative front, the White House asked Congress to support about 20 recommendations listed in its report. These included expediting construction of an Alaskan gas pipeline to the Lower 48,; opening the ANWR coastal plain to drilling, earmarking bonus bids from ANWR leasing for renewable fuel technology and national parks, and supporting the current fuel ethanol tax exemption. The House in August 2001 passed a measure that endorsed much of the president's plan, although it added a title that included over $30 billion in energy tax incentives the White House did not ask for. The following spring, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed an energy bill. That measure did not include ANWR but added climate change provisions the White House opposed. However, it did include energy tax incentives similar to but not as generous as the House that cost about $16 billion. The Senate bill also contained an electricity restructuring title absent from the House measure.
Bill choices
Before lawmakers left for the campaign trail, congressional leaders were seriously considering a much narrower bill containing only those titles with wide bipartisan support: pipeline safety, energy tax incentives (including a proposal to encourage the construction of an Alaskan gas pipeline), pipeline safety, and a clean fuels provision.
In the absence of energy legislation, some lawmakers—although not a clear majority—seemed amenable to securing a clean fuels plan with an ethanol mandate either as separate legislation or attached as a "rider" to nonrelated legislation that might move through Congress this year. Clean fuels provisions now under discussion may also give MTBE producers some legal protection from product liability and provide government-backed loans to help producers convert facilities to other gasoline blendstocks.
Lame duck
A post-election "lame duck" session now appears almost certain, and could happen as soon as the week of Nov. 10, according to congressional staff. But whether or not there will be enough momentum to carry a portion or all of the pending energy bill remains an open question.
Much depends on the outcome of the elections. Independent pollsters are currently predicting that the Republicans will keep their slim majority in the House. In the Senate, races are so tight that it is possible that Republicans may wrestle power away from the Democrats, who now control that body with the narrowest of margins.
With this in mind, some Republicans lawmakers are calling on their congressional leaders to avoid passing energy legislation until the new Congress starts or at least wait until the outcome of the elections are clear.
Some lawmakers from oil-producing states are said to be pushing for a modified energy bill during the short post-election session, assuming that the balance of power has not shifted.
But right now, promising to finish legislation during a lame-duck session offers political hazards to both parties, according to political experts. If Sen. Jean Carnahan (D-Mo.) loses her seat to Republican challenger Jim Talent on election day, Nov. 5, he could claim her seat immediately, allowing Republicans to control the Senate. There is also a chance that if Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alas.) wins his race for governor, he would have to allow the Democrat incumbent to pick his senatorial successor, allowing Democrats to have an upper hand. Political analysts said there is also a possibility that Democrats may not have Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) available to them for crucial votes if she is forced to face a runoff in December because of that state's election laws.
