Reuters is reporting comments from the number two leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, Steny Hoyer (D-MD), that breathe new life into the on-going debate about whether to pass economy-boosting energy security legislation this year — for which there are likely strong majorities in both the House and Senate — and then reworking the more controversial climate change cap and trade provisions to ultimately secure similarly strong support.

As Reuters reports:  “Cap-and-trade legislation pending in Congress may be split in two to ensure that parts that encourage the use of more alternative energy sources can pass the Senate now that Democrats control one less seat, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on Wednesday.

“Elements that limit carbon emissions may be handled separately now that Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat that was formerly held by a Democrat, Hoyer said.

“We ought not to let one be the victim to the other, if you will,” he said. “I think we can move ahead on energy independence, I’m hopeful we can move ahead on the CO2 issue as well but I don’t want to have one be the victim of saying we can’t do one without the other.”

Many Senators — notably strong energy security champion Byron Dorgan (D-ND) — have been calling for the same thing:  Pass the bipartisan American Clean Energy Leadership Act as reported out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee now, so it’s energy security-enhancing, job-creating provisions can begin to work.  Then spend the time necessary to craft a comprehensive climate change bill that reduces greenhouse gases, ensures strong international participation and a level-playing field, and ultimately grows the economy.

This is the first time, though, that a member of the House leadership has expressed the same sentiment.  Since the House energy and climate change bill passed last summer, several senior and junior (and perhaps future ex-) House members have expressed regret at voting for the largely partisan bill.  In the Senate, an encouraging “tripartisan” process involving Senators Kerry (D-MA — didn’t something big just happen in Massachusetts?), Graham (R-SC), and Lieberman (I-CT) has been slowing working through issues that might be added to a cap and trade bill to make it more palatable.

While the downside of splitting the energy security from the climate change provisions is that some of those energy security sweeteners will be no longer available, the upside is that the stand-alone climate change provisions will have to be drafted in a way that secures strong bipartisan support — not swallowed as a bitter part of an otherwise sweet package.

Strong bipartisan support is what nearly all major energy and environmental legislation — from the 1970s to 2007 — has had.  That’s a fact that Leader Hoyer probably recognizes, along with the importance of energy security to the American economy, given that his political career started in the state legislature in 1966 and in the U.S. House back in 1981.  So when this House leader with “fine political instincts” (according to the Almanac of American Politics) expresses a judgment about the proper sequencing of energy security and climate change legislation, perhaps his colleagues would do well to pay attention.

Previous Post  

Next Post

Iran’s Desperation Increases
May 18, 2012

Diplomatic Council Launch and Release of Oil and the Trade Deficit
May 17, 2012

Increased domestic production = increased energy security
May 16, 2012