Energy bill would affect NW; Cantwell, Murray oppose overhaul

By Katherine Pfleger
Seattle Times Washington bureau

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

The 1,100-page bill cleared the House yesterday, 246-180, over Democratic complaints that Republicans locked them out of the 10-week drafting process and then gave them three days to review the final product.

Though some senators have considered filibustering the bill — literally debating it to death — it's unclear whether they would have the votes necessary to win such a standoff. Republicans hope to get the bill to President Bush by week's end.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., will probably vote against the bill, spokesman Todd Webster said, but she hasn't decided whether she'll support a filibuster.

Meanwhile, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., is looking for ways to derail it. Cantwell, a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, called the bill "a patchwork of special-interest deals completely devoid of policy."

Bush considers passing a comprehensive energy policy a priority and asked Vice President Cheney to create a national energy plan after taking office in 2001. Congressional efforts gained momentum with the West's energy crunch and got a jump-start with the Northeast's August blackout.

Republicans say the bill, which provides billions in direct subsidies and $23.5(billion in tax breaks to oil, gas and other energy interests, is intended to increase domestic energy production and safeguard consumers. It is the first rewrite of U.S. energy policy in a decade.

Yet most Democrats say the bill achieves neither of those goals, and instead dismantles consumer protections and sidesteps landmark environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and National Environmental Policy Act.

At a final House-Senate energy committee session Monday, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said if reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a goal, "this bill is a couple quarts low."

The bill cannot be amended, only accepted or rejected by the Senate. If passed, it will impact a host of Northwest power issues:

The bill will change the way hydroelectric dams renew their 30- to 50-year federal licenses, improving the position of dam operators who have long argued that federal wildlife agencies have too much say in mandating methods to get fish around dams.

The bill would allow operators to suggest alternatives that cost less but still provide adequate protections. It also gives operators alone the right to request a trial-type hearing into conditions placed on their license renewals.

Republicans say the changes are necessary to trim an unwieldy process. "We cannot let our existing hydroelectric capacity  be hamstrung" during re-licensing proceedings, said House Energy and Commerce Chairman Billy Tauzin, R-La.

While many Democrats agree the process needs repair, they say the changes won't improve it. "If you want to return the salmon to the Western streams of the United States, this is a bad bill," said Michigan Rep. John Dingell, the energy committee's top Democrat.

The bill provides $18(billion in loan guarantees to back construction of a natural-gas pipeline from Alaska to the Midwest. If the pipeline is built, estimates indicate it will create 400,000 jobs — direct and indirect — nationwide, thousands of which could land in the Puget Sound area.

"If you want to move 5 million tons of steel to Alaska, it has to go through somewhere," said an aide to Cantwell, noting that the ports of Seattle and Tacoma handle the bulk of Alaskan trade.

Nevertheless, the aide didn't think the pipeline would ever be built because the bill failed to include tax credits for companies involved in the massive construction project, should gas prices fall below a set price floor. The Alaska governor and other supporters have said the pipeline is unaffordable without them.

Environmentalists see the measure as another unsound effort to subsidize Alaska and energy interests. "This is one of the most profitable industries and one of the least-taxed industries in the United States," said Erich Pica, Friends of the Earth economic campaigns director.

A plan to inventory oil and gas in the Outer Continental Shelf — vast swaths of ocean that generally start 3 miles off the U.S. coastline — was dropped over concerns that the plan could eventually end a drilling moratorium in some of those areas.

Yet some congressional aides and environmentalists complained yesterday that vague sections of the bill could be interpreted to allow similar studies and would give the administration increased authority to go into some of the sensitive areas.

"Taken in aggregate, the energy bill would clear the way for industrial exploitation of America's marine environment by the oil and gas industry on a scale heretofore unimagined," said Richard Charter, marine conservation advocate for Environmental Defense.

In mixed news for the Northwest, the bill delays until 2007 the implementation of a federal rule that requires regions of the country to form power-transmission organizations. The concept is intended to improve reliability of the energy grid and reduce power prices by increasing wholesale power competition.

But lawmakers from the Northwest and Southeast are concerned about federal regulators' pricing methods and that their traditionally cheap power could be exported elsewhere.

The bill's GOP drafters — chiefly Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Tauzin — left out one of the most controversial provisions to avoid a certain filibuster: drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Domenici has said he wishes it were in.

The bill is loaded with other sweeteners for the bill writers, such as $1(billion for coastal wetlands restoration in Louisiana. Senators casting crucial votes could also make out well. To win key support from Midwesterners, the bill gradually doubles the requirement for ethanol use, a corn-based additive for cleaner-burning gasoline.

"It is a lot to process," the Cantwell aide said. "I don't think a lot of members are going to make particularly informed votes."

Katherine Pfleger: 206-464-2772 or kpfleger@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company