Energy Policy: The Continuing Debate and Omnibus Energy Legislation

Publication Date: December 2004

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Energy

Type:

Abstract:

The 108th Congress adjourned without passing comprehensive energy legislation. In mid-November, Representative Tom DeLay and Senator Pete Domenici indicated that new comprehensive energy legislation will be introduced in the 109th Congress. Representative Joe Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, indicated on December 1, 2004, that any major energy legislation will need to originate in the Senate.

The debate over omnibus energy legislation in the 108th Congress was protracted. The House debated energy legislation in the week of June 14. Bills passed included H.R. 4503, which was essentially identical to the conference version of a comprehensive energy bill (H.R. 6) previously passed by the House. A bill to limit environmental reviews of renewable energy projects, H.R. 4513, also passed, as did H.R. 4517, a bill to expedite federal authorization for siting and operation of refineries. Legislation (H.R. 4529) to allow oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) was withdrawn after the United Mine Workers (UMW) expressed its opposition. The bill would have used bonus bid revenues to help fund the UMW Combined Benefit Fund, which provides health care to roughly 17,000 retired coal miners.

The House passed the conference version of H.R. 6 on November 18, 2003. On November 21, a cloture motion to limit debate in the Senate on the H.R. 6 conference report failed (57-40). Efforts to bring the bill back to the Senate floor early in the second session were unsuccessful. The most contentious provision of H.R. 6 has been the “safe harbor” provision to protect MTBE refiners from product liability suits, a provision for which there is strong support in the House.

The closest consensus was that the cost of the bill had to be reduced. On February 12, 2004, following agreement between the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, Senator Domenici introduced S. 2095, a revision of the omnibus energy legislation. The revised bill was described as “lean” in so far as it was estimated to cost less than $14 billion, in contrast to the $31 billion estimated for H.R. 6. However, S. 2095 dropped the “safe harbor” provision to protect MTBE refiners. With some skepticism developing over the prospects for S. 2095, many of the energy tax credits were appended by the Senate to S. 1637, the Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act. The Senate then included these provisions in H.R. 4520, the bill sent to conference. On September 29, 2004, it was indicated that the energy tax credits would not appear in the conference bill.

On September 28, 2004, Senator Domenici indicated that comprehensive legislation was “dead” for the current session. Some policymakers floated the idea of breaking up the bill and passing less controversial provisions, but others argued that the balances struck in the conference bill were extremely sensitive ones that would not survive treating major provisions separately.

S. 2095 would not have authorized oil exploration, development, and production in ANWR. The bill would have provided $18 billion in loan guarantees for construction of an Alaskan natural gas pipeline. S. 2095 also included an Alaskan gas price floor. See also CRS Report RL32204, Omnibus Energy Legislation (H.R. 6): Overview of Conference Report Non-Tax Provisions.