House panel debates energy bill amendments

WASHINGTON, June 28 --

A House committee today continues to plod through the fine-tuning of a six-part energy bill that Speaker Nancy Pelosi had wanted the full U.S. House of Representatives to vote on by Independence Day.

To the chagrin of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and other environmental advocates, the bill neglects to tackle contentious issues such as motor vehicle fuel economy, coal to liquids and a renewable portfolio standard. It does, however, promote energy efficiency, a "smart" electricity grid, plug-in hybrid vehicles and a renewable fuels infrastructure.

During Wednesday´s mark-up session, Committee on Energy and Commerce chairman John Dingell promised to take up the three unaddressed issues this fall during comprehensive climate change legislation. That bill, he said, should aim to reduce heat trapping gas emissions 60 to 80 percent by 2050.

"We are proceeding on legislation where there is consensus," said Dingell, D-Mich. "I recognize that the bills à may have displeased some of our more ideologically inclined colleagues on the left and the right, who might want us to be more prescriptive on the regulatory side, or more permissive on the production side."

Dingell´s allegiance to the auto manufacturers of his home state has made him a longtime outspoken critic of fuel economy standards. The Senate bill passed a week ago would raise corporate average fuel economy, known as CAFE, from 25 to 35 mpg by 2020.

Absent in this revised energy bill is lightning rod language that was interpreted to overturn the Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court decision issued in April that granted the Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

That section, introduced earlier in June by Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat from southwestern Virginia coal territory, set off a firestorm among environmentalists and politicians claiming it would block California from receiving a federal waiver to curb tailpipe emissions that contribute to global warming.

Dingell´s committee spent most of Wednesday´s lengthy session, which went well into the evening, debating up to 25 amendments drilling down on energy efficiency. The efficiency provisions are touted to slice 8.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of annual emissions from all of the nation´s vehicles.

Representatives unanimously endorsed a five-page amendment to ban the sale of old-style, inefficient, incandescent lightbulbs by 2012. The legislation -- introduced by Jane Harman, D-Calif. and Fred Upton, R-Mich. and supported by the Natural Resources Defense Fund -- calls for gradual increases in lighting efficiency and a safety plan for minimizing human exposure to mercury present in compact fluorescent lightbulbs.

Earlier, Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, expressed concerns about the potential harm of mercury released from a broken compact fluorescent bulb. Democrats didn´t discount his concerns but did point out that the mercury in one bulb is minuscule compared to the amounts released daily by coal-burning power plants.

Burgess was one among a number of Republicans worried that the committee´s energy legislation is too restrictive and will contribute to a sluggish economy. He also expressed disappointment that cellulosic ethanol and wind power aren´t included in the overall bill.

"What do you call an energy bill that doesn´t have energy?" Burgess asked. "A lethargy bill?"

The committee also passed a 50-page amendment to encourage greener federal and commercial buildings, introduced by Mike Doyle, D-Penn., and three other Democrats. It sets an ambitious goal of making all commercial buildings energy-neutral or zero-net-energy by 2050.

Twice, Republicans failed to push through amendments that would have exempted manufactures of trailer homes from complying with new energy efficiency standards. One amendment was introduced by Joe Barton, of Texas, the committee´s ranking member; the other by Steve Buyer of Indiana.

"This is the first and not the last word on subjects we will be wrestling with for some time," said a tired-looking but good-humored Dingell, who engaged in some reading of the tea leaves about how his committee eventually will take on global warming. "We will need to get beyond the stale debate over miles per gallon. We should be talking about the lifetime carbon footprint of vehicles, about the carbon content of fuels, about the promotion of renewable fuels and advanced batteries and other technologies."

"It is the job of the Congress, and of this committee, to make tough calls," he continued. "This will allow us to distribute the burdens fairly, and there will be burdens."