Blue Dogs try to stake out own path on energy

Blue Dog Democrats fired a shot across leadership’s bow on energy yesterday as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) prepared to announce her energy independence package today, in time for the Independence Day holiday.

Conservative Democrats say conflicts could be muted when Pelosi’s package hits the floor next month, since Democrats have already pulled the most contentious energy issues. But they are likely to come into full view in the Energy and Commerce Committee in the fall, when Pelosi wants the House to consider climate change legislation.

{mosads}“We’re going to be advancing not what the Democratic Caucus has embraced, but what the Blue Dog Coalition has outlined,” said Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), a Blue Dog leader, noting that there are six Blue Dog members on the energy committee.

The Blue Dogs announced a set of “Energy Principles” that were approved late yesterday by two-thirds of the 47-member Blue Dog Coalition.

Some of the statements are non-controversial, at least within the Democratic Party. But more contentious is the “energy pay-go” provision, which says that legislation should not reduce access to domestic energy resources.

“It’s going to have to encourage rather than discourage the production of energy,” said Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah).

That could conflict with some Western Democrats’ efforts to roll back the energy boom in the Rocky Mountain West. For example, the House Natural Resources Committee has approved plans to scale back a program that added employees to six Western Bureau of Land Management Offices to speed processing of oil and gas drilling permits.

The Blue Dog policies also say that climate change is real and must be addressed, but “solutions shouldn’t export jobs overseas.”

While nuclear power and coal still have Blue Dog support, the group also wants to improve coal-fired power plants. And it backs technologies to reduce coal pollution, like carbon sequestration. The group’s statement did not address drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and only minimally dealt with fuel efficiency standards.

But Matheson said “compromise is in the air right now on standards,” and moderates would be willing to look at any compromise.

Republicans have seized on what they saw as a breach, saying the Blue Dogs will have to decide between their principles and the more liberal plans of their leaders and some committee chairmen.

A statement by the office of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) underscored that choice, asking: “How then will the Blue Dog Coalition vote on an ‘energy’ bill that produces no new domestic energy whatsoever, increases tax on domestic producers, and erects new bureaucratic energy access restrictions? With Speaker Pelosi or with American consumers?”

Among the issues put off until the fall is a plan by Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) that would pre-empt California and 11 other states from enforcing tougher tailpipe emission regulations than federal government rules.
Pelosi opposes any limits on her state’s ability to regulate its air quality.