07-21-2001
ENERGY: Arctic Drilling Plan Survives Challenge in House Panel
As four House committees advanced the Bush Administration's energy package
this week, the White House scored a crucial victory on July 17 when the
Resources Committee fended off attempts to block oil and gas exploration
in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It was a giant step toward
realizing President Bush's goal of pumping up domestic energy production
on public lands.
The Resources Committee approved the Energy Security Act on a 26-17 vote
after a bruising six-hour markup. The five-part bill aims to increase
fossil-fuel production, diversify energy supplies, and improve fuel
delivery. The legislation would launch an inventory of federal lands,
except parks and wilderness areas, to gauge their energy-production
potential; extend tax- and royalty-reduction incentives to encourage
companies to engage in greater oil and gas development; provide incentives
for producing geothermal energy on public lands; and allow oil and gas
exploration and production on the Arctic refuge's coastal plain.
Resources Chairman James V. Hansen, R-Utah, hailed the bill as "the
first difficult step toward increasing our energy independence." But
ranking member Nick J. Rahall II, D-W.Va., characterized the bill as a
Republican "grab bag of goodies for Big Oil-from granting an
unfettered ability to drill on federal lands to declaring a $7.4 billion
royalty holiday at taxpayers' expense." And Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash.,
ridiculed the bill by referring to a 1920s scandal involving secret
leasing of federal oil reserves to private petroleum companies. "The
majority's idea is close to Teapot Dome," Inslee said.
For environmental groups, the top priority in the 107th Congress is
keeping petroleum companies out of the 20-million-acre Alaska refuge, and
Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., offered an amendment to strike the bill's
provision allowing drilling there. But Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, said that
Markey was naive in his portrayals of the potential harm to the vast
wilderness area. "He's never been there. He doesn't know what he's
talking about," Young said. Republicans, with the help of five
Democrats, defeated Markey's amendment on a 19-30 vote.
In other House committee action on the Bush energy plan, Ways and Means on
July 18 approved a $33.5 billion package of energy tax breaks on a
party-line vote of 24-17. The bill provides at least $14 billion in tax
incentives for oil and gas producers. It also offers goodies targeted at
consumers, such as tax credits ranging from $4,000 to $40,000 for the
purchase of highly fuel-efficient cars and trucks, at a cost of $2.1
billion; and up to $2,000 in tax credits for homeowners or builders who
improve home energy efficiency, at a cost of $1.6 billion.
Meanwhile, the House Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a three-day
amendment spree, concluding on July 19, as it produced the conservation
component of the Administration's energy package. The panel eventually
voted 50-5 to report the Energy Advancement and Conservation Act to the
full House, but the vote belied the regional and political conflicts that
marked the more than 15 hours of intense battles during the
markup.
Chairman W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, R-La., called the measure "a
giant leap in ensuring the availability of inexpensive and environmentally
friendly energy for this and future generations." But the five
Democrats who voted against the bill said it does not go far enough to
conserve energy.
The panel battled over fuel additives and rules that would, for the first
time, apply fuel-consumption standards to sport-utility vehicles and light
trucks.
Lawmakers from farm and oil-rich states struck down an amendment that
would have exempted California and other states from a Clean Air Act rule
requiring fuel additives-specifically, the petroleum-based MTBE, or
ethanol, which is derived from corn-to reduce pollution. Reps. Christopher
Cox, R-Calif., and Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., argued that newer
reformulated gasoline can burn cleaner without the additives. But
farm-state members, such as Rep. John M. Shimkus, R-Ill., said that
ethanol was "the savior of the country for clean air." After
nearly two hours of debate on July 18, the committee voted 22-33 along
regional lines to keep the decade-old mandate forcing the use of
additives.
The committee defeated efforts by Waxman and Markey to set tougher
fuel-economy standards than the bill's more-modest proposal to cut
gasoline consumption by SUVs and trucks by 5 billion gallons for the model
years 2004 through 2010.
Conservationists ridiculed the bill for improving current sport-utility
fuel economy by less than a mile from the current average of 20.7 miles
per gallon. Markey's bid to boost the standard for cars to 37.5 mpg and
for light trucks to 29 mpg by 2011 was rejected, 11-43. Waxman's effort to
raise the combined average for cars and light trucks to 40 mpg by 2016
lost on a 7-47 vote.
Tauzin bragged that the bill would provide fuel savings equivalent to
taking two full years' of light trucks off the highway. Ranking member
John D. Dingell, D-Mich., whose district is home to the major automakers'
headquarters, said a specific miles per gallon goal should be left to
experts at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Cyril T. Zaneski, David Hess, Michael Posner, and Molly M. Peterson
National Journal
