House approves bill to boost energy supply
Democrats lose fight over LNG facilities
WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives yesterday passed a massive energy bill, sweeping aside challenges to a provision that would virtually eliminate local and state control over liquefied natural gas facilities.
The House voted, 249 to 183, to approve the Republican-written bill, which includes an estimated $12 billion in tax breaks and subsidies for energy companies and would allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The measure, which has strong White House backing, must still clear the Senate, where a similar bill died in the last session of Congress
The vote followed two days of debate in which the Republican majority rejected Democratic attempts to strip the bill of tax breaks and subsidies -- measures they called giveaways to big energy companies -- and add in measures encouraging conservation, such as a proposal for higher fuel efficiency standards.
Republicans also rejected Democrats' attempts to prevent the bill from shielding makers of the carcinogenic gasoline additive MtBE from product liability lawsuits stemming from contamination of drinking water supplies. A report last year found that samples from 86 communities' drinking water supplies in Massachusetts had tiny but detectable levels of MtBE.
Before the final vote on the bill, the House also voted to reject an amendment challenging a provision that would keep localities from exercising control over LNG facility construction. Representatives Michael Castle, a Delaware Republican, and Edward Markey, a Malden Democrat, cosponsored the measure. Markey and Castle wanted to take out a provision in which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would have final say over whether an LNG facility could be built or expanded. Under the measure as passed, the federal government would consult with state and local governments, but could ignore their objections.
Moreover, if local governments failed to meet a federal deadline for reviewing a proposal, they would be ''conclusively presumed" to have approved it. Local authorities could conduct safety inspections of LNG facilities, but would have no power to enforce citations.
Soaring natural gas prices have spurred 55 proposals to build new facilities to handle the super-cooled gas around North America, including stations in Fall River and off the coast near Gloucester. But local opponents believe the plants could be targets of terrorist attacks that would cause catastrophic damage.
The vote to reject the amendment followed a 20-minute debate, played out against a backdrop of a large Boston Globe photograph of an orange LNG tanker in Boston Harbor. Markey brought the poster-size photo into the chamber to bolster his argument that communities should have some control over whether LNG facilities should be built in their midst.
''Right behind the ship you can see East Boston High School," said Markey. ''If there was a terrorist attack, if there was an accident, you would not call the federal government. It would be the local police, the local fire department, the local emergency medical technicians that would respond."
But House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, said, ''When I look at this [photograph], what I see is energy for America. I see security for America, and I also see safety. Admittedly it's a big boat, it looks threatening. . . . But we already have existing provisions in law to make sure these terminals that are already in existence are as safe as is possible to be."
Castle argued that the provision ''tramples on the rights of states and individual communities," and a few of his fellow Republicans echoed that theme, including Representative Christopher Shays, a Republican of Connecticut. Markey also argued that there ''was no crisis" in energy supplies because the number of LNG facilities has gone from two in 2001 to five today, with six more licensed to be built.
But opponents of the amendment argued that the country needs more natural gas. Afterward, a congressional aide said the vote was lost after industry lobbyists convinced members from agricultural states that the measure would help ease the price of fertilizer.
Hours before his vote, Markey sent an electronic fund-raising pitch telling prospective donors how he planned to vote and asking them to send him campaign contributions, Associated Press reported.
Markey's e-mail mentioned vehicle fuel efficiency amendments he proposed to the legislation in the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week, and the amendment to stop oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He noted that the Republican-sponsored energy bill would be up for a vote by the full House ''in a few short hours."
''Help me continue to fight to expose to the American people the dangers of this extreme and ineffective action by making a contribution today," Markey wrote in the e-mail Wednesday.
Material from the Associated Press was included in this report. 