ShareThis Page
Energy bill prospects dim in dispute over drilling, drought |

Energy bill prospects dim in dispute over drilling, drought

The Associated Press
| Monday, June 6, 2016 11:00 p.m
In this photo taken April 20, 2016, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, (right) accompanied by the committee's ranking member, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., speak about energy policy modernization during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. Congressional efforts to approve the first major energy bill in nearly a decade are in jeopardy amid a partisan dispute over oil drilling, water for drought-stricken California and potential rollback of protections for the gray wolf and other wildlife.

WASHINGTON — Congressional efforts to approve the first major energy bill in nearly a decade are in jeopardy amid a partisan dispute over oil drilling, water for drought-stricken California and potential rollback of protections for the gray wolf and other wildlife.

A bipartisan bill approved by the Senate in April would boost oil and natural gas production while encouraging renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, and increased energy efficiency.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, called the overwhelming 85-12 Senate vote “a significant victory that brings us much closer to our goal of modernizing our nation’s energy policies,” while Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, the panel’s senior Democrat, said the measure was “urgently needed.”

But the bill’s prospects dimmed after the House approved a series of election-year amendments last month that promote Republican priorities, such as increased drilling for oil and gas and overriding protections for the gray wolf and other species under the Endangered Species Act. The House bill also would promote hunting and fishing on federal lands, shift more water to California farmers and cut the flow for threatened fish.

The House proposal includes at least seven measures that the White House strongly opposes or has threatened to veto.

House leaders have named 40 lawmakers to serve on a joint House-Senate committee to negotiate a final agreement, but Democrats are threatening to use a procedural motion to scuttle Senate action unless the GOP amendments are withdrawn.

“I wish they could do something besides legislation that has been already circled for veto pen action by the president,” Cantwell said after the House vote. A House-Senate “conference that starts with that as the baseline is not going to be a productive effort.”

Senators from both parties are expected to discuss the bill at closed-door luncheons Tuesday.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the House-approved bill is nothing more than “a partisan, special interest package that fails to invest in infrastructure, leads to more energy consumption and carbon pollution, stacks the deck against the environment and … undermines protections for our public lands and wildlife.”

Republicans defended the measure.

“This bill is about jobs. It’s about keeping energy affordable. It’s about boosting our energy security, here and across the globe,” said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Eight Democrats joined 233 Republicans to support the bill, while 178 lawmakers— including six Republicans — opposed it.

The next steps are unclear.

“It’s really hard to see how this thing moves forward,” said Marc Boom, associate director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. “I don’t see why senators who worked very hard on a bipartisan process would want to get into the (negotiating) room with a partisan product” like the House bill.

Even so, Murkowski professed optimism, especially given the overwhelming vote in the Senate.

“There’s just so much good in this, let’s figure out how we can get going,” she said.

Cantwell did not rule out participation by Senate Democrats in a House-Senate conference, but said, “A 21st-century energy policy has nothing to do with rolling back environmental laws. It should be about smart investments in American infrastructure, innovation and new technologies.”

Categories: Wire stories
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.