Energy Policy Overhaul Wins Senate Approval

Congress completed work Friday on President Bush’s cherished goal of the first overhaul of national energy policy in more than a decade.

Senate approval of the energy bill ended a 4 1/2 -year struggle that began shortly after Bush took office. It gained momentum after oil prices hit record highs this year, and the latest bill ended up passing with strong bipartisan support.

Bush, praising Congress for sending him a measure “critically important to our long-term national and economic security,” said he was eager to sign it.

The Senate approved the bill, 74 to 26, on Friday; the House passed it, 275 to 156, on Thursday.

“This legislation has been years in the making and is long overdue,” Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) said. “While this bill is not perfect, we need a national energy policy.”

Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), who also supported the bill, called it “an improvement over the status quo.”

She said she would have preferred that some more ambitious proposals had been included, such as increasing miles per gallon rules for vehicles. But she said the bill that passed was a “reflection of what was possible.”

The 1,745-page measure seeks to increase and diversify domestically produced fuel sources. It provides $11.5 billion in tax breaks to promote conservation and spur production of oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy.

It extends daylight saving time beginning in 2007 and requires greater use of mostly corn-based ethanol in the nation’s gasoline supply. In addition, it includes provisions aimed at strengthening electricity grids.

While the bill would do little to provide immediate relief from high gasoline prices, its supporters said it could help keep prices down over the long term.

Mark Stultz of the Natural Gas Supply Assn. called the bill “only a first step, albeit an urgently needed step, toward a more balanced U.S. energy policy -- one that recognizes the importance of expanding both supply and conservation options in order to keep fueling our growing economy.”

Even with the measure’s passage, energy policy is likely to remain a hot topic on Capitol Hilll.

When Congress returns from its August recess, it is expected to take up another long-sought Bush initiative: opening a portion of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration.

And a provision of the energy bill that would allow for an offshore survey of oil and gas resources is expected to be followed up with legislation that would allow states to opt out of the long-standing moratorium on new drilling in most U.S. coastal waters.

The energy bill drew the support of 25 Senate Democrats, many from farm states enthusiastic about the provision requiring refiners to nearly double, to 7.5 billion gallons, ethanol that must be added to gasoline.

All but six of the chamber’s Republicans supported the bill.

Nineteen Democrats voted against it, including California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.

“What’s far worse than what’s in the bill is what’s not in the bill,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, another Democrat who opposed the measure. “The effort to conserve is negligible.”

Boxer and Feinstein expressed similar complaints.

Boxer, however, said she was pleased that the bill included a provision she sponsored calling on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to conclude action by the end of the year on California’s demand for energy refunds from the 2000-2001 electricity crisis.

If the commission cannot meet that deadline, it must explain to Congress what it has done and specify a timetable for the rest of its process.

The energy bill includes a number of recommendations made by a task force established by Bush in 2001 and headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

The task force’s private meetings with energy industry lobbyists later became the subject of a legal fight that reached the Supreme Court, which set aside a judge’s order that would have required Cheney to turn over documents showing those he met with.

Energy legislation passed the House in 2003, but fell two votes short of overcoming a filibuster in the Senate, largely because of a dispute over whether producers of a gasoline additive blamed for contaminating water supplies should be shielded from suits seeking cleanup money.

That legal protection was dropped from the latest bill, clearing the way for its passage.