WASHINGTON — Sen. Ken Salazar backed away Wednesday from his moratorium blocking commercial oil-shale development and shifted support to a measure that would allow states to accept or reject it.
Calling it a good “safety valve,” Salazar said a provision from Utah Rep. Jim Matheson giving power to the states could go forward in place of the moratorium.
Matheson’s measure passed the House on Tuesday as part of a major energy bill.
“The concept of allowing the states to make the decision about development within their own states is a concept I support,” he said. “It allows us in the state of Colorado to control our own destiny.”
But dropping his moratorium means Salazar, a Denver Democrat, would allow the Bush administration to issue regulations on oil-shale development, a move he has fought as premature. Issuing those regulations is the first step toward commercial leasing of federal land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
A kind of rocky sediment, shale in those states could generate 800 billion barrels of oil, the Department of the Interior estimates. Proponents of a go-slow approach to shale development say that there are questions about how much energy and water would be used to extract the oil and that commercial production is at least 15 years off.
The decision comes as Salazar would need to renew his provision, which expires at the end of the month, and as Republicans criticize Democrats for rejecting efforts to increase domestic energy production.
Put in a spending bill last year, the moratorium bars the Interior Department from spending money to issue final oil-shale regulations.
The department released its preliminary rules in July.
Republican Sen. Wayne Allard of Loveland opposes the moratorium and has tried to overturn it.
“It might be a step in the right direction. We’ll just have to wait and see,” Allard said of the Matheson proposal.
Gov. Bill Ritter was still analyzing the new language, said Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer.
“If the existing moratorium does expire at the end of this month and if the (Bureau of Land Management) prematurely considers adopting final regulations, giving states a stronger voice would be important,” he said.
One group that backs shale development said Salazar’s shift won’t change much.
“His stand on leaving these things to the states will only result in states blocking energy development,” said Jim Pfaff, state director for Americans for Prosperity, which promotes free-market solutions.
Environment Colorado opposed Salazar’s move.
“Oil shale is just a detour from where we need to be going in our energy future,” said Keith Hay, an energy advocate with the group.
Salazar said that he supports the language on state control “in concept” but that it may need improvement.
The language was part of a bill passed Tuesday night that approved offshore oil drilling and funds renewable-energy programs. The House delegation from Colorado split along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting it as a comprehensive energy plan and Republicans opposing it.
The House bill with the oil-shale language may not become law, given Republican opposition — they argue that it is too restrictive in terms of drilling — and President Bush’s veto threat.
Language that would allow states to opt into oil shale could be put into legislation that Congress is expected to pass to continue funding the government.
With the time to pass spending bills running out, they are apt to all be rolled into one resolution.
Salazar’s moratorium, however, may still survive. If the new language is not put in the spending resolution, the senator’s moratorium would automatically be carried forward another year.
Anne C. Mulkern: 202-662-8907 or amulkern@denverpost.com
