"Moderate Republicans may need a political refuge somewhere in Alaska if they are repeatedly asked to approve drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, because that's where voters might send them a year from now," Markey said. "It will be a preserve of what a moderate Republican used to look like."
Even if Congress allows drilling in the Arctic, it would take from six to 10 years to begin production there. Tiernan Sittenfeld, legislative director of the League of Conservation Voters, said the move would save Americans just one penny per gallon of gasoline by 2025.
"Americans want real solutions to their energy problems, like increasing fuel-efficiency standards and, with winter approaching, helping people weatherize their homes," Sittenfeld said.
But Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton said that if Clinton had approved it a decade ago and ANWR's fields had reached peak production, the output could replace the Gulf of Mexico oil that is currently not being tapped because of damage from this summer's hurricanes. GOP leaders estimate the refuge would generate $2.5 billion in revenue through oil and gas leases, though opponents call those numbers inflated.
Roger Herrera, a former British Petroleum geologist who has lived in Alaska for 30 years and sits on the board of the lobbying group Arctic Power, said the recent rise in oil prices and gas shortages "have been beneficial" to his cause.
"We've always argued energy isn't something you should be complacent about," Herrera said.
David Karvelas, chief of staff to drilling opponent Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), described the legislative showdown as "do or die."
"This is their best shot," he said of those who back exploration in the refuge. "If they can't get it done with rising gas prices, it's over."
