WASHINGTON, April 14 (UPI) -- House lawmakers moved closer to adopting broad energy policy legislation intended to help the United States meet its ever-growing demand in coming years as supplies dwindle, and they took the first steps to make into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authored by the Republicans.
Members of the House committees on Energy and Commerce and on Resources began debate Tuesday how the United States can secure its petroleum supplies both from abroad and within its own borders. By late Wednesday -- one day later than originally planned -- both panels agreed to their own versions of the energy bill, which should be sent to the House floor by the beginning of next week and combined with related measures moving through other committees.
If approved by the full House and later by the Senate, the Energy Policy Act should give Republicans many of the provisions they have been pressing for over the past two years, including the controversial move to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"Having energy is fundamental to our prosperity ... reliable energy brings economic growth, jobs, freedom, and the highest quality of life in human history," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the energy committee chairman.
Barton argued not only was it crucial for the government to encourage exploration for new oil sources and boost output, including drilling in ANWR, but also for the government to exercise more control over oil policy -- even to the point of overruling local authorities if necessary.
Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., the resources chairman, singled out the Alaska drilling as one of the bill's more important components.
"At current prices the United States spends nearly $500 billion annually to import energy," Pombo said. "Today we declared a start to the end of the days of exporting American jobs and money overseas for our energy needs."
Such concerns were not restricted to Republicans.
"The lack of an energy policy is producing higher prices at the pump," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., at a news briefing Wednesday.
Indeed, since 2001, oil prices have soared 119 percent nationwide on average, while natural gas prices have climbed 60 percent. As a result, the Energy Committee approved their latest bill by a 39-to-15 vote and the Resources Committee approved their version 30 to 13. Both come with a cheaper price tag than a bill proposed two years ago, costing taxpayers perhaps $8 billion over the next 10 years, compared with $23.5 billion under the earlier failed legislation.
The House has voted on energy bills four times over the past four years, but none of the measures has moved to the Senate. Republicans in 2003 had to abandon efforts to pass an energy bill because they could not muster the last two votes needed to get it through the Senate, even though it had been approved by the House.
The latest bill has more similarities with than differences from the one proposed two years ago, but both Democrats and Republicans seem keener now to see some progress in tackling energy issues, given the soaring costs of oil in recent months. Fears about gasoline prices climbing even higher is a real concern for many voters as well as businesses, a fact not lost on legislators.
"Congress must pass the energy bill now. America can't afford to wait," said Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a spokesman for the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth. "Volatile prices, escalating demand and severe limits to domestic energy supplies are continuing to threaten America's economic and national security."
Whatever new bill the House passes, it probably will come at a price for the environment because it provides less than $500 million in incentives for traditional energy industries -- coal, oil and natural gas -- to become more energy efficient. It also gives no incentive for auto manufacturers to boost fuel efficiency.
Instead, the bill will lead to more oil and gas exploration on U.S. territory, speed up the construction of new refineries and authorize funding for clean coal projects. It may well be, however, that market forces more than legislation will force industries to become more energy efficient to survive.
Two weeks ago, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told a group of oil analysts although current high oil prices were most likely due to pessimism in the markets about energy security -- and thus were bound to fall lower over the next few months -- he also pointed out that manufacturers in particular would have no choice but to become more energy efficient if oil prices continue to rise.
"The recent shift in expectations (of higher oil prices) ... has been substantial enough and persistent enough to bias business-investment decisions in favor of energy-cost reduction," Greenspan said.
--
E-mail: [email protected]
