The U.S. House last week (Mar. 30), in a barely bipartisan vote, approved a Republican Party goal: major energy and environmental legislation. Its title is “House Resolution 1: Lower Energy Costs Act.” The H.R. 1 denomination indicates its priority on the part of the House Republican leadership. The bill passed by 225-204 (221 Republicans and 4 Democrats in favor, 203 Democrats and 1 Republican opposed).
The four Democrats supporting the Republican legislation were Vicente Gonzales and Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, and Marie Glusenkamp Perez of Washington. The sole Republican deserter was Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. Six members did not vote.
Most of the mainstream press framed the legislation politically, as a rebuke to President Biden in general and, pointedly, the slippery-named Inflation Reduction Act, which is really climate change legislation. The context was the upcoming 2024 presidential election. The Washington Post headlined, “House GOP passes energy package with eye on gas prices, 2024.” The New York Times headline read, “House Passes G.O.P. Energy Bill, Pushing to Roll Back Biden Climate Measures. CBS News billed the legislation as “House passes sprawling GOP energy bill aimed at reversing Biden climate policies.”
What would H.R. 1 do? According to a Congressional Research Service summary, “This bill provides for the exploration, development, importation, and exportation of energy resources (e.g., oil, gas, and minerals).” For example, bill provisions aim to “(1) expedite energy projects, (2) eliminate or reduce certain fees related to the development of federal energy resources, and (3) eliminate certain funds that provide incentives to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases.”
It would expedite those goals by “waiving environmental review requirements and other specified requirements under certain environmental laws, eliminating certain restrictions on the import and export of oil and natural gas, prohibiting the President from declaring a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing (a type of process used to extract underground energy resources), directing the Department of the Interior to conduct sales for the leasing of oil and gas resources on federal lands and waters as specified by the bill, and limiting the authority of the President and executive agencies to restrict or delay the development of energy on federal land. In addition, the bill reduces royalties for oil and gas development on federal land and eliminates charges on methane emissions.”
H.R. 1 also “eliminates a variety of funds, such as funds for energy efficiency improvements in buildings as well as the greenhouse gas reduction fund.”
While House Republicans complain about government spending and deficits, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 1 would increase the federal deficit by $430 million by 2033.
Fossil fuel interests have applauded H.R. 1. The American Petroleum Institute said the bill “could help strengthen America’s energy security and ensure meaningful action on permitting reform.” The American Gas Association said, “Provisions in the Lower Energy Costs Act (H.R. 1.) that will streamline the permitting process for energy projects and expedite judicial review to prevent critical energy projects from being delayed indefinitely by frivolous lawsuits, are critical components to helping our nation meet its energy and environment goals.”
Reaction by environmental interests has been largely negative, calling it the “Polluters over People Act.” The Sierra Club commented that the legislation “would exacerbate the climate crisis, perpetuate environmental injustices, and jeopardize U.S. economic and national security by extending our country’s reliance on risky and volatile energy sources. The legislation would also undermine bedrock environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, by short-circuiting permitting processes and limiting valuable public input.”
Steven Nadel, head of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, commented, ““This is a repeal of investments that enable households and businesses to make energy-saving improvements. It’s a repeal of funding for low-carbon technologies in low-income and disadvantaged communities. It’s a repeal of job training programs. We have to help families and businesses reduce energy costs, and we have to reduce climate pollution rapidly. This bill does the opposite.”
One common element among all the reactions to the House’s priority legislation: it’s a dead letter. It has no prospects of becoming law. The conventional political wisdom is that the House bill is aimed at virtue signaling to its base support, with no chance of enactment in the Senate, where the Democrats still control, although only by an even slimmer margin than the GOP control of the House. Should the Senate manage to pass the legislation in the face of a filibuster, the chances appear to be nearly certain that President Biden would veto it. Republicans could never muster the two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to override the White House thumbs down.
But that doesn’t mean any energy legislation would be stillborn. Greg Whetstone of the American Council of Renewable Energy advised, ““Energy legislation must have broad bipartisan support to have any real chance of enactment this Congress. And any truly comprehensive permitting bill needs to help streamline the nation’s unworkable approval process for electric transmission lines. Today, the average transmission project takes well over a decade from announcement to completion, a staggering length of time that is nowhere close to the speed at which transmission must be built if we have any hope of meeting our climate targets.”
–Kennedy Maize
To subscribe to The Quad Report, use the email address and type “subscribe” in the subject line. I’ll take it from there. To comment, use the email address.