Keystone Squabble Dooms Bipartisan Energy Bill

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 14: Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) heads for a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in the U.S. Capitol building May 14, 2013 in Washington, DC. Army Lt. Gen. Terry Wolff, Director of Strategic Plans and Policy, J-5, Joint Staff, and Defense Undersecretary for Policy James Miller will be briefing the committee on the situation in Syria. (Photo by Allison Shelley/Getty Images)
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Jason Plautz
May 12, 2014, 3:22 p.m.

Amid a dis­pute about amend­ments, a bi­par­tis­an bill on en­ergy ef­fi­ciency has fallen short in the Sen­ate, and with it the cham­ber’s op­por­tun­ity to vote on the Key­stone XL oil-sands pipeline.

The en­ergy bill from Demo­crat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hamp­shire and Re­pub­lic­an Rob Port­man of Ohio fell by a 55-36 vote, with just three Re­pub­lic­ans vot­ing to end de­bate on the bill. Among those vot­ing against it were Re­pub­lic­ans John Ho­even of North Dakota, Ro­ger Wick­er of Mis­sis­sippi, and Johnny Isak­son of Geor­gia, who were all spon­sors on the bill.

The en­ergy bill had been paired with an up-or-down vote to ap­prove the Key­stone pipeline, a long­time Re­pub­lic­an pri­or­ity.

Re­pub­lic­ans had hoped to also of­fer four or five en­ergy amend­ments to the bill, in­clud­ing meas­ures re­lated to the En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency’s emis­sion rules for power plants and nat­ur­al-gas ex­ports. But Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id filled the tree, say­ing re­peatedly that Re­pub­lic­ans were mov­ing the goal­posts on the bill, and that both sides had agreed to vote on Shaheen-Port­man and then Key­stone, with no oth­er amend­ments.

That led to Re­pub­lic­ans shed­ding their sup­port for the bill, which had got­ten 79 votes to open de­bate last week.

Port­man said be­fore the vote that he was hope­ful a deal could even­tu­ally be worked out, say­ing it was “a reas­on­able re­quest” to get en­ergy amend­ments on the bill and that there was a chance the en­ergy-ef­fi­ciency lan­guage could come back.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.