Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress

Publication Date: September 2004

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Environment

Type:

Abstract:

One major element of the energy debate in the 108th Congress is whether to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska, and if so, under what conditions, or whether to continue to prohibit development to protect the area’s biological resources. The Refuge is an area rich in fauna, flora, and commercial oil potential. Sharp increases in prices of gasoline and natural gas from late 2000 to early 2001, followed by terrorist attacks, and further increases in 2003-2004, renewed the ANWR debate for the first time in eight years; however, its development has been debated for over 40 years. Few U.S. locations onshore stir as much industry interest as the northern area of ANWR. Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge.

The first key vote in the 108th Congress came in the Senate. On March 19, 2003 the Senate passed an amendment by Senator Boxer to strip language from the Senate Budget Resolution that would have facilitated subsequent passage of ANWR development legislation. The second group of votes came April 10, 2003 in the House on the way to passage of a comprehensive energy bill (H.R. 6). The House adopted an amendment by Representative Wilson (NM) to limit certain features of federal leasing development to no more than 2,000 acres. It rejected an amendment by Representative Markey to delete ANWR development from the bill. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 6 by adopting the provisions of the Senate’s version of omnibus energy legislation from the 107th Congress. The Senate version contained no provision to open the Refuge to development. The conference committee did not include ANWR development in the conference report. The Senate bill has since been superseded by a new bill (S. 2095) which also does not include ANWR development provisions. On June 4, 2004, Representative Pombo introduced H.R. 4514, to open ANWR to development, as part of a leadership effort to spotlight energy issues. There has been no further action on the bill. Few observers feel that enactment of ANWR development legislation in the remainder of the 108th Congress is likely. Current law prohibits development unless Congress acts.

Development advocates argue that ANWR oil would reduce U.S. energy markets’ exposure to crises in the Middle East; boost North Slope oil production; extend the economic life of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System; and create many jobs in Alaska and elsewhere in the United States. They maintain that ANWR oil could be developed with minimal environmental harm, and that the footprint of development could be limited to 2,000 acres. Opponents argue that intrusion on this ecosystem cannot be justified on any terms; that oil found (if any) would provide little energy security and could be replaced by cost-effective alternatives; and that job claims are overstated. They also maintain that proposals to limit any footprint size have not been worded so as to apply to Native lands, which could then be developed if the Arctic Refuge were opened.