Democrats say energy plan tilted to industry

Contend GOP drives agenda to undo bill Senate passed in July

By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press, 9/29/2003

WASHINGTON -- Congressional Republicans are cobbling together an energy blueprint substantially more favorable to industry than a Senate-passed bill hailed by Democrats as a victory this summer, Democrats charge.

From drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge to electric utilities' use of renewable fuels, proindustry views are winning consistent support in negotiations on a final bill.

Democrats are complaining about being shut out from decision-making as the talks move toward a conclusion -- possibly by the end of this week -- on the first overhaul of the US energy agenda in a decade.

Senator Pete Domenici, chairman of the House-Senate negotiations, dismisses the Democrats' complaints. The GOP staff has "worked closely" in "open and bipartisan negotiations," said Domenici, a New Mexico Republican.

But he also said he wants to avoid the type of gridlock that prevented passage of a bill last year.

A senior Democrat involved in the talks said he is dismayed at the way Republican leaders are putting together the bill after the House and Senate approved different versions this year.

"Republicans . . . expect [us] to ratify a final product that we have not yet seen," said Representative John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat.

The emerging plan reflects a greater tilt toward the energy industry, is more to the White House's liking, and more closely represents the priorities of conservative House Republicans.

It would largely replace the legislation passed by the Senate in July when GOP leaders, facing an impasse over their own bill, resurrected a measure approved in 2002 when Democrats were in the majority.

Domenici promised to rewrite the Senate-passed bill in negotiations with the House -- and helping him is Representative Billy Tauzin, a Louisiana Republican who is head of the House delegation.

"This bill will be a Christmas wish list for the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industry," predicted David Alberswerth, a natural resource specialist for the Wilderness Society.

As an example, Democrats point to the Senate bill's attempt to spur use of renewables in electricity generation. The Senate had approved, despite vigorous opposition by the industry, a requirement that electric utilities produce 10 percent of their power from renewable fuels. This plan, however, never made the drafts during negotiations and will be abandoned.

Senators from both parties had supported a ban on the gasoline additive MTBE, which has been found to contaminate drinking water. A four-year phase-out was in the Senate bill, though not the House measure.

Leading House members, including Tauzin and majority leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, insisted on dropping the ban and giving makers of the petroleum-based additive a liability waiver in water contamination lawsuits.

The issue remains under discussion, though Tauzin and DeLay are close to getting what they want, according to industry sources following the talks.

Lee Fuller, a lobbyist for the independent oil and gas industry, said many of the measures included in the final bill are needed "to grapple with this longer-term question" of developing adequate energy supply.

One of the biggest beneficiaries will be the oil and gas industry.

The emerging bill would renew the push to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, which the Senate has repeatedly rejected.

Domenici has said he will pull this provision if he is convinced that it will lead to a successful Democratic filibuster and jeopardize the entire bill.

But there is no such worry among Republicans over other proindustry measures.

For example, Domenici and Tauzin have resurrected an idea, omitted from both the House and Senate bills, to order an inventory of oil and gas resources in coastal waters. Leading House opponents fear the inventory is a prelude to lifting bans on offshore drilling that have been in place for years.

The GOP drafts that are unlikely to be significantly changed include:

Increases in money for nuclear research, including the construction of a $1.1 billion reactor for making hydrogen. These proposals were not in either earlier bill.

An incentive to make vehicles that run on either gasoline or an alternative fuel.