US Congressional Democrats passed a reworked energy bill in the House by 235 to 181 votes on Dec. 6, only to see the measure stall in the Senate the following day.
A motion to invoke cloture and limit debate fell 7 votes short of the necessary three-fifths majority in a 53-42 vote on Dec. 7. Senators on both sides pledged to work to resolve differences, but a source said on Dec. 10 that Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) also was trying to secure additional support for another cloture vote.
Democrats also denied Republican charges of being excluded from formulation of the latest energy bill, which would raise fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks to an average 35 mpg, increase the federal renewable fuels standard to 36 billion gal/year, and require that at least 15% of generated electricity come from renewable sources.
“Even without a conference, we worked with Republicans, consulting on and sharing proposed language. And that is an understatement. Many provisions were removed and modified at the request of Republican Senate and House members,” Reid said on Dec. 7 before the cloture vote.
Minority as well as majority staff members from Senate and House committees with jurisdiction met over a 2-month period starting Sept. 24 to work on the bill’s provisions, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s majority staff said in a Dec. 6 e-mail message to journalists. “In fact, we want to commend Republican members for the technical expertise provided by their staffs throughout this process,” it said.
‘Fairly one-sided’
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), the Energy and Commerce Committee’s ranking minority member, took a different view as the bill arrived on the House floor. “In the debate so far in this Congress on energy legislation, it’s been fairly one-sided. It’s been the majority trying to put their blueprint for American on energy...without input from the minority party,” he maintained.
The bill that passed the House also faced a threatened presidential veto. “We believe that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing energy security is an area where both parties should be able to find common ground. Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in the House today pushed a partisan bill that members had very little opportunity to study before [and] which they knew was unacceptable to the president and had no chance of being signed into law,” White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said on Dec. 6.
She said the measure would raise taxes and increase energy prices, points that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also made a day later before the unsuccessful cloture vote. “It is not a serious attempt to make law, and is not a serious attempt at an accomplishment. It is a partisan bill that must be improved or set aside,” he maintained.
Senate Democrats expressed their disappointment after the cloture vote fell short. One key committee chairman suggested that “a few smart changes to some proposals will allow this bill to move forward,” however.
“The energy tax package, with its incentives for energy alternatives, energy efficiency, and new and better infrastructure, has strong support in the Senate and will be an essential part of a good energy bill. The Joint Economic Committee has determined that the tax package’s offsets are responsible, appropriate, and will have no negative impact on consumer prices,” said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
Unfavorable tax impacts
Oil and gas trade associations continued to oppose the measure. “The large tax increases the bill would impose on the industry would discourage companies from investing in increased US oil and natural gas production, and it would make us less competitive worldwide at a time when competition for the world’s energy resources is intensifying. Further, it would tax away the incentives that have allowed our companies to keep pace with the rising demand in spite of the numerous restrictions, legislative and regulatory, that keep many of the areas rich with energy off-limits to exploration and production,” American Petroleum Institute Pres. Red Cavaney said in a Dec. 6 letter to US senators.
Independent Petroleum Association of America Pres. Barry Russell suggested in a separate statement that the bill which passed the House would establish “an unfortunate precedent of funding one energy source at the expense of another. This country needs to develop all sources of energy to increase supply here at home and protect our energy security. While the growth of renewable energy sources and improvements in energy efficiency are essential to America’s energy future and should be encouraged, we should not be impairing the development of America’s most viable energy resources.”
Industry opposition extended to gas utilities, not only because of the bill’s possible adverse impacts on supplies, but also because it would roll back a 2005 Energy Policy Act provision which reduced pipeline depreciation periods by 5 years. “Responsible energy legislation should not only encourage increased use of natural gas, but also ensure adequate supply. This legislation moves in the opposite direction,” American Gas Association Pres. David N. Parker said on Dec. 6.
The Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States also expressed concern over the latest bill’s tax provisions, but added that its members were pleased that public land use provisions which were part of the House’s earlier energy measure in August had been removed. “Congress is starting to get the message from business and consumers that in this time of economic uncertainty, they don’t want less domestic energy production; they want more,” IPAMS Executive Director Marc W. Smith said.
The bill’s provision to expand federal requirements to use ethanol in motor fuels drew fire from the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association as well as API. “NPRA believes that the timetable for overriding and expanding the current Renewable Fuels Standard is unrealistic, and that the broad, mandated reliance on renewable fuels currently unavailable, such as cellulosic ethanol, will only add to costs for consumers and complicate the markets,” Executive Vice-Pres. Charles T. Drevna said on Dec. 6, just 4 days before his appointment as NPRA’s president.
“The disguised new tax on refiners and ethanol blenders is also unfair, requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to issue and sell credits for advanced biofuels, whether they exist or not,” Drevna said.
