Hopes that the nation's worst oil spill would spur Congress out of its energy-policy stasis have faded substantially, two years after crude began gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.

Lawmakers are as sharply divided as ever on big picture questions of what should fuel cars and heat homes, while even efforts to enact narrower legislation to improve regulation of offshore drilling have largely fallen by the wayside in a Capitol Hill environment of partisan bickering that seems unlikely to end anytime soon.

There are, nonetheless, a few bright spots. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) says that interest in the state of the world's oceans has grown substantially since the spill, and environmentalists point to bipartisan passage in the House and Senate of the so-called "RESTORE Act," which would send 80 percent of the penalties collected from the Deepwater Horizon disaster to five Gulf Coast states, as a rare bit of good news.

But a comprehensive energy bill to address concerns over climate change and energy security is hardly discussed these days, and lawmakers have been unable to find agreement on any other recommendations from a bipartisan commission that examined the causes and cures of the Gulf spill. The commission recommended ensuring adequate funding for agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, substantially boosting the cap on liability for oil companies and codifying regulatory changes for the Interior Department to eliminate conflicts of interest.

Even the RESTORE Act's enactment is not a guarantee, as it is tied to a contentious transportation bill whose fate is unclear as it heads to a conference committee (E&E Daily, April 19).

Some see the spill as a lower priority two years out than the high gasoline prices consumers are facing at the pump today.

"I think it's still on peoples' mind, maybe not as topical -- if you think about it, around this place, every two minutes there's a new subject matter," said Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), a moderate who supports expanded oil drilling. "But I think what's more on people's minds about energy policy is gas prices; that's really weighing on people's minds."

Begich said he and his colleagues think the Obama administration and industry have done "a lot of good work" to improve regulations and best practices in the wake of the spill and that supporting the RESTORE Act was a key priority for many lawmakers.

"People feel like that's a -- I don't want to say a completion of that issue -- but it really starts to put a final conclusion on it," Begich said in an interview yesterday. "That's what I think. I don't think [the spill] influences long-term energy policy."

Others see the spill as having an ancillary benefit of focusing attention on the plight of oceans in general.

As evidence, Whitehouse, a longtime ocean advocate, noted increased attention to ocean issues from environmental groups, a hearing just this week in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on sea-level rise, and the post-spill formation of a Senate Oceans Caucus, which Whitehouse and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) spearheaded.

"So for the first time, in a way that is different than before [the spill], you see a lot of bipartisan interest in the issues in our oceans, and to me, that's a very good thing," Whitehouse said.

But when questioned on what will spur more significant policy changes, he quipped, "The election."

Members of the oil spill commission slammed Congress earlier this week for failing to act on its recommendations (Greenwire, April 17). And the inaction has left many environmentalists shaking their heads.

"It is extraordinary that Congress has completely abdicated its responsibility," said Regan Nelson, a senior oceans advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Nelson said the RESTORE Act's broad support was a rare "bright spot" but questioned why other recommendations aimed at improving safety and environmental protection did not share similar bipartisan support. She also lamented the insistence of some lawmakers on trying to tie spill-response measures with "issues that don't have anything to do" with the underlying subject.

As examples, Nelson pointed to House Republicans' inclusion of the Keystone pipeline in their transportation bill alongside RESTORE and bipartisan insistence in the Senate to share federal oil royalties with states as a condition of enacting changes. Nelson said revenue sharing should not be approved because oil beneath federal waters is a publicly shared resource whose proceeds should be split evenly across the country.

Supporters of revenue sharing made the opposite point this week, saying it was those who would not allow states to share the oil bounty who were to blame for spill-response bills' languishing.

"A bipartisan majority in the Energy [and Natural Resources] Committee and the full Senate would be happy to pass common sense legislation addressing new production, safety and a fair share of revenue for the affected states. Unfortunately, a small number of senators are opposed to engaging in a debate that includes revenue sharing," Murkowski and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said in a statement this week (E&ENews PM, April 18).

Others say there is less need for legislation now because of the proactive steps from oil companies and the administration.

"We have to look at this in toto, not just in terms of what legislation has been passed but what is the response by the rulemaking authority and the industry," said Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). "And that has definitely not been a standstill; that has definitely pushed forward."