July 30, 2007 – 8:51 p.m.
Conspicuously absent from the energy package House Democrats hope to bring to the floor this week is a mandate for increased use of ethanol and other alternative transportation fuels.
The White House has made an alternative-fuels mandate a centerpiece of its plan to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent in a decade, while the Senate energy bill (
Democrats are trying to build support for potential amendments to increase automobile fuel economy standards and require utilities to generate more electricity from alternatives such as wind. House leadership hopes to debate the bill Aug. 3, although some energy lobbyists suggested that it may slip until Congress returns from recess in September.
Leaders have been negotiating with Democrats from oil-producing states who have sided with Republicans in resisting stricter regulations on the oil and gas industry.
Meanwhile, lawmakers and lobbyists on all sides appear content to let the question of a new mandate for renewable transportation fuels slide for now. That has prompted questions over whether support for increasing ethanol use may be ebbing because of concerns about unintended consequences, including environmental impacts and higher prices for livestock feed and groceries.
House Speaker
“It’s not completely off the table, but we have to have some more conversations in the caucus and see where the support is,” a spokesman for Pelosi said. “The Speaker is well aware of the debate; we are in the process of figuring these things out.”
The question is bound to arise in a potential conference with the Senate on the energy bill or later this fall when the House Energy and Commerce Committee takes up broader climate-change legislation. Democratic Rep.
Although liquefied coal would displace oil imports, environmentalists say the technology would do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — and could double emissions if the carbon dioxide is not captured during production and pumped underground.
Deferring the renewable-fuels debate not only complies with the wishes of Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats, who have been circumvented on automobile fuel efficiency and renewable electricity, but also avoids a pitched floor battle over liquefied coal.
Environmentalists oppose the Senate language, which they say does not protect against potential increases in air and water pollution as well as habitat destruction from increased agricultural production.
“From our standpoint, it’s almost better going into conference for the House not to have anything at all,” said Karen Wayland, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Counsel. That could strengthen Pelosi’s hand in pressing for environmental safeguards in conference, she said.
Acknowledging that the issue is largely off the table in the current debate, ethanol advocates are taking a “wait and see” approach.
“I wouldn’t read into it that there is a lack of support for renewable fuels,” said Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association. “Obviously there would be in conference an opportunity to look at renewable-fuel standard language, but I don’t want to put this cart in front of the horse just yet.”
Wayland said the debate still may arise in the House if Republicans try to split the Democratic Caucus with a vote on liquefied coal. They have had mixed success with the strategy this year.
Republicans narrowly lost a vote in February, 200-207, on a motion to recommit a biofuels bill (
Noting that the ethanol industry is standing on the sidelines, an energy lobbyist who has opposed a renewable-fuels mandate suggested that momentum for the policy is lagging.
“There’s not much stomach” to press for a new mandate, the lobbyist said, citing concerns about the environment and food prices. “All of that stuff has created some uncertainty about whether we should move forward.”