Efficiency bill may energize a wider debate

WASHINGTON— The Senate on Wednesday plunged into its biggest debate on energy policy in years by taking up a modest, bipartisan bill that aims to boost the efficiency of buildings nationwide.

Despite the measure’s wide popularity and narrow scope, the Senate debate on the bill is poised to become a battleground for fighting out an array of energy issues, including whether the Obama administration should approve TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Key-

stone XL pipeline.

“Now, this little bill is loaded with symbolism,” said Joe Kruger, energy and environment director at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “It has become a test of whether the Senate — much less the entire Congress — can pass substantive legislation setting energy policy amid partisan bickering on oil drilling and environmental regulations.

“It’s taken on greater significance than it might seem (because) it has become a vehicle to fight out broader energy policy issues that people don’t agree on,” Kruger added. “There’s this hope that something this modest and common sense like energy efficiency can pass.” Modest and voluntary

Sponsored by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, DN.H., and Rob Portman, R-Ohio, the legislation would force federal agencies to adopt energysaving techniques for computers, while encouraging more energy-efficient building codes and helping manufactures pare their power use.

“It will help create private-sector jobs, it will save businesses and consumers money, it will reduce pollution and it will help make our country more energy-independent,” Shaheen said.

As a legislative instrument, the measure is more of a gentle prod than a hammer, constructed around incentives and voluntary programs, rather than mandates.

Unlike other government energy initiatives, the changes aren’t tied to costly tax deductions or federal spending. And the benefits would apply broadly, without being targeted to a single energy industry.

“It’s very modest, and it’s all voluntary,” Kruger said. “It’s very much a product of its times in that there’s no huge pots of money.” Vehicle for interests

But as the first big energy legislation to hit the Senate floor in years — potentially since the chamber passed a sweeping energy bill in 2007 — the measure is widely viewed as a target for proposals on loosely related topics.

Many senators are not eager to let energy legislation pass by — no matter how small — without trying to make it a vehicle for advancing their top priorities, even though supporters are pleading for the Senate to pass a “clean” bill with an overwhelming vote.

For instance, Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said he plans to offer at least one amendment addressing Keystone XL, the proposed pipeline that would carry oil sands

“It’s taken on greater significance than it might seem (because) it has become a vehicle to fight out broader energy policy issues that people don’t agree on. There’s this hope that something this modest and common sense like energy efficiency can pass.” Joe Kruger, energy and environment director at the Bipartisan Policy Center

crude from the Canadian province of Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries if it wins the administration’s approval. One of his options is a non-binding provision expressing the sense of Congress that the project is in the national interest, similar to a measure that got 62 votes earlier this year. Another, tougher possibility is a proposal to require the government to approve the pipeline. ‘A no-brainer’

Franz Matzner, associate director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said tacking on any controversial language could doom the bill and break apart a broad coalition of stakeholders who support the measure.

“Energy efficiency is the definition of a nobrainer. It cuts pollution, and it saves people money,” Matzner said.

Senators should withhold controversial amendments not only for “the substance of the bill,” Matzner said, but also “to show that, especially around things that are so obviously popular and straightforward, the Senate can get things done.” Opposition from right

Casting the bill as heavy-handed, the Heritage Foundation urged senators to vote no.

The efficiency measure “is fatally flowed because it is based on the idea that businesses and families will act irrationally unless the government intervenes,” said the conservative think tank’s political arm, Heritage Action for America.

A host of new “wasteful programs” aren’t needed because businesses already have sufficient free-market incentives to increase efficiency as a means of driving down costs, the group said.