Energy bill debate promises fight

WASHINGTON -- The Senate is ready to take up broad energy legislation that has caused splits over automobile gas mileage, drilling in an Arctic refuge and electricity competition in the shadow of Enron's collapse.\nThe debate expected this week comes nine months after President Bush outlined his plan to increase the nation's energy supply by expanding oil and gas drilling on public land and rejuvenating nuclear power.\nThe House passed its version, but in the Senate, majority Democrats have offered legislation that relies more heavily on conservation.\nTo help bolster his argument for Senate passage, Bush checked out the engines of three "hybrid" vehicles that were parked on the White House driveway. He said more hybrids would be put onto the U.S. market next year -- good news for American consumers who "understand the ramifications of dependency on foreign sources of crude oil."\n"Dependence can lead to price shocks and fuel shortages. And this dependence on foreign oil is a matter of national security," Bush said. "To put it bluntly, sometimes we rely upon energy sources from countries that don't particularly like us."\nThe crisis atmosphere of a year ago has all but disappeared -- energy prices are low, supplies plentiful -- and the urgency to act, too, may have lost steam, say lawmakers and lobbyists.\nBush, in a weekend push to promote his plan, dismissed claims that it focuses too much on fossil fuel production and not enough on conservation and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.\n"Conservation technology and renewables are important. Yet they alone cannot solve our energy problems," he said in his weekly radio address.\nDuring his recent trip to Asia, Bush stopped in Alaska where he again stressed the need to drill for oil in an Arctic wildlife refuge. \nThe idea won mention in his Saturday broadcast, with the president saying drilling can go ahead without hurting the environment while also providing jobs.\nEnvironmentalists have pledged to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and some Senate Democrats say they will stall energy legislation if Republicans press the refuge drilling issue -- as most expect them to do.\nSenate Democrats reject development of the refuge and emphasize conservation: Sharp increases in fuel economy for automobiles, tougher federal energy efficiency standards and greater support for renewable fuels and natural gas as opposed to oil.\nTax breaks in the Democratic proposal -- about $16 billion worth, or about half of what the House has offered -- lean more toward conservation and renewable fuel sources as opposed to the oil, gas and nuclear industries focused on in the House version.\nSen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, says drilling in the refuge is essential to lessening U.S. dependence on foreign oil. He plans an amendment that would give oil companies access to the refuge's coastal plain, where billions of barrels of oil are believed available.\nMurkowski says he has the majority needed to get it passed, but not -- at least so far -- the 60 votes needed to overcome a sure filibuster.\nOther issues also could scuttle a potential compromise:\n--Automobile mileage. A Democratic proposal would increase fuel economy by 30 percent, to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2013, and remove preferences now given to sport utility vehicles. Currently, new automobiles are required to meet a fleet average of 27.5 mpg and SUVs and minivans 20.7 mpg.\n--Ethanol. Farm interests and the oil industry are fighting over whether to increase the use of corn-based ethanol as a motor fuel by establishing a "renewable fuels" requirement for gasoline.\n--The $16 billion in tax breaks over 10 years. A Democratic version would give more of the money to conservation. Republican proposals tilt toward helping producers.\n--Electricity competition. With Enron's bankruptcy fresh in their minds, senators will consider how much say the federal government should have over siting transmission lines, managing power grids and monitoring the business practices of large energy holding companies.\nThe bill Daschle is introducing may attract more than 200 amendments.\n"The big question is whether along the way the bill gets killed because it's just too big and cumbersome," says Dan Becker of the Sierra Club. "The conventional wisdom is that this is a bill that's just too heavy to fly."\nWith some many contested issues, David Owens of the Edison Electric Institute thinks it is "unavoidable" that the bill will bog down.\nThe group's members, investor-owned utilities, want the repeal -- as the bill provides -- of a Depression-era law that restricts the activities of utility holding companies.