In the News

House Republican leaders canceled a planned vote on their fiscal 2025 Energy-Water spending bill at the eleventh hour Tuesday night, sending the chamber's appropriations work into a tailspin.

 

Lawmakers said opposition from Democrats and a number of Republicans — including key members like Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah), co-founder of the Conservative Climate Caucus — forced them to pull H.R. 8997, which funds the Department of Energy and the Army Corps of Engineers, moments before the scheduled vote.

 

The decision came after hours of amendment debate that may have been in vain. The development likely spells doom for the $59.2 billion legislation.

 

“There's no sense to put out a bill when you don't have the votes, and right now we don't,” House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told POLITICO's E&E News as lawmakers streamed out of the House chamber.

 

House leaders on Monday scrapped votes on two other spending bills — Agriculture and Financial Services — that appeared to lack the necessary support for passage, and appeared poised to cancel all of next week’s votes.

 

Republicans had packed the Energy-Water measure with provisions that would gut federal climate and clean energy initiatives in order to shore up nuclear security programs, putting off Democrats.

 

A number of conservatives opposed the bill’s topline — slightly higher than the enacted level — and some members from Georgia were ready to object over a lack of funding for the Port of Savannah.

 

Energy-Water Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.) was trying to convince lawmakers who had concerns about the bill to change their mind in the hours before the scheduled vote.

 

At one point Tuesday afternoon, Flesichmann walked behind the House chamber while on the phone and could be heard saying, “I’m whipping the heck out of this bill on the floor right now. … Hang in there.”

 

Rep. Mike Garcia lamented, “Apparently, there’s no bill good enough right now for some of these folks."

 

The California Republican authored a battery storage permitting provision in the bill that frustrated some members, including Curtis.

 

Curtis declined to comment on his concerns with the bill, but an aide said the Utah Republican couldn't support language against easing approvals for battery storage systems “as a strong advocate of responsible permitting reform.”

 

The Energy-Water bill is $1 billion above the enacted level, thanks to a bump to the defense top line, but about $2.3 billion below the Senate version.

 

The measure would significantly slash funding for DOE’s energy efficiency and renewable energy portfolio and its clean energy loan programs. It also contains policy riders aimed at climate-related executive actions, federal rulemakings on greenhouse gas emissions and environmental justice.

 

“The cuts in this bill will absolutely jeopardize innovation to achieve American energy independence and security,” said Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), ranking member of the Energy-Water spending panel. “This bill pushes our nation backwards.”

 

It remained unclear whether the House would still vote on the Interior-Environment bill on Wednesday after the Energy-Water measure’s collapse.

 

“We'll see,” Cole said. “I think leadership's basically making those decisions on a day-by-day basis.”

 

The Senate Appropriations Committee will look to advance four bipartisan fiscal 2025 spending bills Thursday, including the Interior-Environment measure. The committee has already approved three of its spending bills unanimously.

 

Amendments passed, rejected

The House passed a number of Republican amendments to the Energy-Water bill targeting funding for specific clean energy and climate initiatives, including DOE’s Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap and efficiency standards for ice makers and consumer water heaters.

 

Democrats, knowing that the bill has no chance of becoming law, did not bother to request recorded votes for some amendments, allowing them to pass by voice vote.

 

The House passed an amendment from Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) to block funding for the implementation of several executive orders on climate change.

 

Democrats waived through amendments from Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) to prohibit funding for DOE’s Office of Scientific Workforce Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and to bar funding for the consideration of the social cost of greenhouse gases in federal rulemakings.

 

“The social cost of greenhouse gas is an extremely inefficient policymaking tool,” said Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.). “Estimates are based on questionable, flawed and uncertain assumptions, and the Biden administration refuses to share details on how they come up with these numbers.”

 

A proposal from Norman to block funding for the American Climate Corps squeaked by on a 199-197 vote.

 

Another approved amendment would pull $8.75 million from DOE’s administrative account and shift it over to the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, which oversees projects focused on carbon capture, hydrogen production, methane emissions reductions and more.

 

“We shouldn’t ignore our fossil fuel and carbon mitigation research,” said Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), the amendment’s sponsor. “I’m not against renewable energy; I just believe we shouldn’t be putting most of our eggs in one basket.”

 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) withdrew an amendment to zero out funding for DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, which the bill already proposes to slash by 18 percent. Her office did not respond to a request for comment.

 

Lawmakers also rejected a number of proposed amendments in a series of landslide roll calls. One would have eliminated funding for DOE’s Title 17 clean energy loan program, and another would have eliminated funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program. The bill already proposes to claw back $8 billion from DOE’s Loan Program Office.

 

Another defeated amendment would have eliminated funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which the bill already proposes to cut by 43 percent. Similarly rejected were amendments to reduce DOE officials’ salaries to $1.

 

One blocked amendment from Roy would have prohibited funding for the implementation of the landmark transmission rule that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued earlier this year. The rule has been the subject of lawsuits from a number of state public service commissions.