Aug. 2001 Vol. 222 No. 8  International Politics

William Garland,  Contributing Editor

Democratic Senate likely to spoil Bush’s energy plans

Many of President Bush’s relatively bold proposals on energy – stacked toward U.S. production, but far from lacking on conservation and alternatives – appeared to be ensnared in political upheaval partly stemming from the Senate’s changeover to Democratic control. The switch by Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont from Republican to Independent occurred just after passage of Bush’s sweeping tax bill, but totally changed the landscape, just as Bush’s energy plan came into political focus.

One of the leading proponents for several policies, especially a more lenient approach toward drilling in Alaska, was replaced by a senator with many opposing views. Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, former chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, had championed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), giving the measure a glimmer of hope. But with his replacement by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., the proposal appeared all but dead for 2001 and potentially years beyond.

Heavy fire from enviros and media. Environmental groups trained unrelenting fire on the overall Bush proposal and found generous coverage in national media. It was almost surprising, after weeks of poorly balanced stories describing the policies as deadly to the environment, that the Wall Street Journal, in the first weeks of summer, found 37% of Americans supporting the Bush plan, while 38% described it as too favorable for oil and gas. Almost as soon as the plan was announced, Bush and administration officials began an offensive to offset negative reviews and play up conservation. By the end of June, when Bush released actual legislative initiatives in his "Comprehensive National Energy Policy," he spent almost all of his remarks at the Energy Department, laying out energy-saving proposals and highlighting measures to be taken at the White House, including turning off unnecessary lights and "accent lighting" and making sure that unused computers were shut down.

In another concession to environmental concerns and his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, the administration announced in July that the government would offer 1.47 million acres of leases in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, but ban any leasing near Florida’s coastline. Interior Secretary Gale Norton said it would exclude any leases in a broad band of about 100-to-300 miles surrounding the state’s shores. Norton said an earlier House vote of 247 to 164 to ban Florida offshore leasing (part of the Interior Department’s annual spending bill) was not an influence.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., also had announced a "fight to the death" against offshore Florida drilling that would have entailed blocking a Senate vote on Bush’s nominee for another high-ranking Interior post. A statement from the National Ocean Industries Association said, "NOIA is greatly disappointed that the Bush administration would reject the counsel of energy experts worldwide . . . by further constricting access" to offshore resources. The Washington Post said the action "may signal a retreat from some of his (Bush’s) most ambitious plans for opening protected areas to energy production."

Bingaman not a roadblock, says aide. Many analysts suggested that the Senate changeover to Democratic control would make it far tougher for many of Bush’s proposals. But Bingaman’s spokesman on the Senate energy panel argued that Bingaman’s background representing a state with strong oil and gas interests would make a difference. "Chairman Bingaman has always felt that energy issues shouldn’t be partisan and are not partisan," said the spokesman, Bill Wicker. "Whenever there are disagreements on energy matters, they tend to be more along regional lines than Democrat and Republican. There are a couple of notable exceptions to that . . . ANWR leaps to mind where the Democrats and Republicans simply do not agree. . . . But we agree much more than we disagree (on other provisions) . . . If you look at Bingaman’s bill and if you look at Murkowski’s bill and the White House’s national energy plan, you’ll see they have a lot more in common than they don’t. In fact, . . . Chairman Bingaman went through Sen. Murkowski’s bill and his own bill, and identified all the areas that we call common ground, and there were 37 provisions where language was identical or near identical. And we can probably move ahead fairly quickly" in those areas.

One of those measures will probably be a proposal, included in the House version of Bush’s energy plan, that would provide relief to marginal oil and gas wells in an environment of lower oil prices. Bingaman has sponsored a Senate version of the bill that would slash U.S. royalties on the low-output wells when crude oil prices slip to levels averaging less than $15/bbl. But Wicker, as expected, said the common ground would not extend to ANWR. "I would not look for ANWR to be taken up" in the Senate energy committee, he said. "It’s my belief, even before the change in leadership, there was a lot of doubt whether the votes for ANWR would be there even then. . . . I’m not sure it was alive before Jeffords made his change."

Different tone toward OPEC. U.S. policy toward OPEC has undergone a sea change in the new administration, according to The New York Times. Gone are the days when former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and other Clinton officials publicly ranted against OPEC any time they were in earshot of media microphones.

"The Bush administration, at least publicly, has absolved OPEC of any role in pushing up fuel prices, and instead, blamed a limited refining capacity at home," the Times reported in June. "Unlike the Clinton team, which interrupted OPEC meetings and infuriated its members with cell phone calls demanding action, the Bush White House has opted for a gentler approach to its key oil-rich allies . . . The White House is gambling that such low-key rhetoric . . . especially (with) Saudi Arabia, the cartel’s de facto leader, may in the end deliver more oil to the United States."

William Garland has covered energy for 20 years in Washington as a reporter and bureau chief for Texas newspapers, and also as editor of The Energy Wire. He is a regular contributor to this column.