Energy and Climate Report provides current, thorough coverage of clean energy, efficiency, and climate change legislation, regulation, policy, legal developments, and trends in the U.S. and...
By Ari Natter
June 7 — The path ahead for the House and Senate to reconcile their versions of broad energy legislation appears to be rocky, with some analysts questioning whether a formal conference between the two chambers will occur.
The House's decision to add to its version of the bill a slew of energy policy measures opposed by the Obama administration and congressional Democrats makes it unlikely that enough Senate Democrats would support sending the Senate version to a conference committee to work out differences, a Democratic leadership aide told Bloomberg BNA.
“It doesn’t make anyone want to hurry to talk about things that can’t get done,” Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told Bloomberg BNA in an interview. “I don’t know that they are very serious about getting something when they send over things that the president clearly said he would veto.”
In the balance hangs what could be the first broad energy bill passed by Congress is nearly a decade.
Both the House and the Senate versions include measures to expedite the federal approval process for liquefied natural gas exports, streamline the approval process for electric transmission lines, increase cybersecurity protections for the electricity grid and expedite licensing for hydropower projects.
But the bills also contain key differences that would need to be negotiated. Many of them, such as language opposed by the Obama administration to streamline the permitting process for mines and a provision that would require expedited consideration of natural gas and pipeline siting applications by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, were recently added to the bill as part of an 806-page amendment approved May 25 by the House (101 ECR, 5/25/16).
“I would have real issues going to conference with that un-credible of an opener,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told reporters.
Election year politics almost certainly were in play in the House's decision to load up the bill with an amendment composed of bills that the White House already threatened to veto, analysts such as Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton administration climate adviser, told Bloomberg BNA.
“I think the fundamental question is does the House want to get a bill, and if they do, what kind of compromises are they willing to make? How far are they willing to go toward the Senate language? In an election year, that’s not going to be easy,” said Bledsoe, who is president of Bledsoe & Associates, an independent energy consultancy.
“I would say the rhetoric of Trump contrasted with the rhetoric of Clinton has made that probably harder,” he added. “When the Republican standard bearer throws down gauntlets on a whole variety of energy and climate issues, it could be harder for House Republicans to compromise.”
Chris Miller, who spent eight years as senior policy adviser on energy and environment climate issues for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said a “distinct possibility” exists the Senate won’t choose to go to conference.
“What’s the incentive for Democrats to go to conference, particularly if they are going to take the Senate majority,” said Miller, who now works at AJW, a consulting firm. “President Clinton will want to have some sort of energy policy initiative fairly early on.”
Still, not everyone believes Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and chief architect of the Senate bill, will allow the legislation to go into the waste basket after months of work.
A conference will work out differences to reach a bill that can be signed into law, because no one wants to end up with one that the president would veto, a former committee staffer told Bloomberg BNA.
To contact the reporter on this story: Ari Natter in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Pearl at email@example.com
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)