Politically divisive amendments on U.S. EPA rules, the Keystone XL pipeline and renewable energy tax credits are the reasons that Senate leadership hasn't taken up an energy efficiency bill from Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) that easily cleared committee last year, a frustrated Shaheen told some of the bill's supporters yesterday.

More than 70 senators would be expected to vote for the bill, S. 1000, which would direct the Department of Energy to set stricter building codes, she said during an Alliance to Save Energy event.

It also has the backing of both environmental advocates and influential business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but Shaheen said other political issues have proved too daunting to overcome during staff meetings and meetings with leadership on both sides of Congress in the past few weeks.

"The challenge really is, can we get people to limit the amendments that will be offered to the bill?" she said. "The debate really is not about efficiency. It's about all these other energy issues that people are reluctant to vote on."

The legislation passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in an 18-3 vote in July, and one of the nays -- Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) -- has since told colleagues that he was given "bad advice" and would now vote for the bill.

Pressure for a floor vote has intensified in recent weeks. Shaheen and Portman have started sending letters to prod leadership on that point, and last week, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) endorsed the bill (E&ENews PM, May 14).

Ross Eisenberg, who recently left the Chamber of Commerce to become vice president for energy and resources policy at NAM, said the group's members want Shaheen and Portman's bill to come up for a vote.

NAM has also spoken out against new EPA pollution rules for large industrial plants and criticized President Obama for stopping the Keystone XL pipeline, which would link Canada's oil sands to the refineries of the Gulf Coast.

Shaheen said yesterday she's asking supporters to accept an amendment-free vote to give leadership an easier decision, but when asked whether NAM would accept such a stance, Eisenberg said the group hasn't taken a position on that plan.

"Let's just get this thing to the floor. We can worry about those later," he said of the amendments.