|
Democrats may split along regional lines on looming energy legislation |
|
By Manu Raju
|
|
Posted: 06/07/07 06:52 PM [ET] |
After getting an earful from constituents over skyrocketing gasoline prices, Senate Democrats next week will turn to an energy bill that could expose regional differences and create roadblocks similar to those that haunted Republicans along the campaign trail last year.
While the Republican-controlled Congress in 2005 enacted an energy bill, Democrats pounded GOP candidates during the 2006 midterm elections for not doing enough to keep down gas prices as big oil companies were reaping record profits.
The Democratic-controlled Senate next week takes its first swipe at the hot-button issue, but internal differences over climate change, the use of coal and how efficient to make vehicles could complicate their efforts to achieve one of their signature campaign promises on their “Six for ’06” agenda.
A new Pew Research Center poll shows that 52 percent of Americans are “very closely” paying attention to the rise of gasoline prices, and 40 percent want to know the reason for it.
“This is what voters are talking about, this is what voters are bringing up in town hall meetings, this what they ask about at the Chamber of Commerce,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said.
Recognizing that awareness, Democrats are working behind the scenes to finalize the broad package — the elements of which Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is stitching together from various Senate committees — and try to minimize dissent during floor debate. But they will find it hard to bridge the vast regional differences between members from fuel-producing states, energy-consuming states and agriculture states.
“I’ve never been in one debate about energy where regional differences weren’t significant,” Wyden said.
One example is a controversial push by coal-state senators to expand the nation’s reliance on coal as a transportation fuel.
Last month, on a party-line vote, Democrats on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee fended off an attempt by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) and the late Craig Thomas (R) of Wyoming that would have mandated 21 billion gallons of coal-to-liquid conversion by 2022. That would have gone toward the underlying bill’s requirement that 36 billion gallons of biofuels be produced by 2022.
Environmentalists and their Democratic allies in Congress are strongly opposed to liquefying coal for fueling cars, saying doing so would substantially drive up greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming. But coal-state lawmakers, including presidential candidate Barack Obama (D-Ill.), argue that it will wean the country off of foreign oil by increasing reliance on an abundant domestic fuel source.
Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, who joined fellow Democrats in voting against the Bunning-Thomas amendment last month, said he plans to offer a different liquid coal amendment that would first seek to increase research into sequestering greenhouse gas emissions underground before expanding use of liquid coal.
“I think coal-to-liquids are great, by the way, but you’re creating twice as much CO2,” Tester said, referring to the potent greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
Another coal-state Democrat, Montana’s Max Baucus — whom Republicans believe is vulnerable in his 2008 reelection campaign — may also seek to include incentives for liquid coal production in a broad energy tax package that his Finance Committee plans to mark up soon. That package may be attached to the underlying energy bill.
Some of these efforts concern Democratic critics of the plan.
“There are people in coal states who don’t want to ‘X out’ an opportunity for coal technology to advance and mature,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “But they’re not ready to set a national mandate for how much fuel should come from a product that isn’t really going to reduce the CO2 footprint.”
Cantwell and others concerned about global warming may irk fellow Democrats from coal states and agriculture states if they push for deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions for “advanced” biofuels promoted in the bill. Allies of environmentalists are considering offering an amendment that would require a 50 percent reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for those biofuels.
Environmentalists also want Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to try to amend the forthcoming energy legislation with elements of her own renewable-fuels bill.
To further complicate the debate, Democrats from auto-producing states are concerned with language, approved by the Senate Commerce Committee, that would increase fuel economy standards in automobiles to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. They say that the plan could hurt an ailing domestic auto industry.
While Democratic leaders see the issue as critical to reducing fuel consumption, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said the bill has a “very long way to go and a lot more changes are needed before it is a positive result.”
Meanwhile, efforts by interest groups could further open regional divides. Livestock producers are pushing for an amendment that would waive implementation of the renewable fuels standard if corn prices grew too high. They say that increased demand for ethanol — a high priority for agriculture-state lawmakers — is driving up the prices for livestock feed to record levels.
The price of chicken feed, for instance, has increased 60 percent over the last several months.
“We’re hoping for some relief,” said Richard Lobb, spokesman for the National Chicken Council, a trade group.
|
