But it turns out he’s not the only one seeking the position. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) also announced his interest in the position yesterday.

In a letter to House Democrats, Markey explained his decision. “I do so because I believe the twin issues of energy and the environment will be of paramount importance in the next Congress, and the Natural Resources Committee will be a critical forum in which the national debate over these issue will be played out,” he said.

Markey will likely have his work cut out for him. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) is the leading contender to take over as chairman of the committee. In a statement released last week, Hastings said his priorities include increasing domestic energy production “through an all-of-the-above energy plan” and ensuring that the Obama administration is held “accountable” for its new offshore drilling policies.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), the current chairman of the committee, is seeking the ranking spot on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The current chairman, Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), lost his re-election bid.

In his letter, Markey also acknowledged that the fate of the other committee he chairs, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, is in question. Some Republicans have said they’ll abolish the committee, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) established in 2006.

The package passed after hours of floor debate. Republicans argued that the bills are ill conceived, would kill jobs and are too far-reaching.

If signed into law, the package, among other things, would:

• Remove the cap — currently at $75 million — on a company’s liability for economic damages from an oil spill
• Facilitate the restructuring of the now-defunct Minerals Management Service, which was responsible for permitting and licensing offshore oil and gas drilling
• Require that oil companies use new safety technologies meant to avoid blowouts at an oil well
• Provide whistleblower protections for workers who report safety violations on oil rigs

The package includes several more narrow bills offered by Reps. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and James Oberstar (D-Minn.), among others.

Now that the package has passed, attention shifts to the Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is struggling to gain the 60 votes necessary to pass a stripped-down energy bill that includes a number of oil spill response provisions. As in the House, Republicans and some Democrats have opposed a provision in the bill that would remove a cap on oil companies’ liability in the event of a spill. Opponents argue that such a provision will stifle drilling in the Gulf, leading to job losses.

Reid is expected to bring his bill to the floor on Wednesday, though the schedule is very much still in flux.

It remains unclear how the House package will be conferenced with the Senate bill. While the House and Senate packages deal with the oil spill, the House package does not include energy provisions, as that chamber passed a climate and energy bill last year. Reid was not able to secure the votes to include a cap on carbon, even a scaled-down utility-only cap. Neither was he able to secure the votes for a renewable energy mandate.

Several major coal companies hope to use newly loosened campaign-finance laws to pool their money and defeat Democratic congressional candidates they consider “anti-coal,” including U.S. Senate nominee Jack Conway and U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler in Kentucky.

The companies hope to create a politically active nonprofit under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, so they won’t have to publicly disclose their activities — such as advertising — until they file a tax return next year, long after the Nov. 2 election. [...]

“With the recent Supreme Court ruling, we are in a position to be able to take corporate positions that were not previously available in allowing our voices to be heard,” wrote Roger Nicholson, senior vice president and general counsel at International Coal Group of Scott Depot, W.Va., in an undated letter he sent to other coal companies.

Nicholson declined to comment on his letter Tuesday, after the Herald-Leader obtained it.

“A number of coal industry representatives recently have been considering developing a 527 entity with the purpose of attempting to defeat anti-coal incumbents in select races, as well as elect pro-coal candidates running for certain open seats,” Nicholson wrote. “We’re requesting your consideration as to whether your company would be willing to meet to discuss a significant commitment to such an effort.”

Apart from Kentucky Democratic senate candidate Jack Conway and Rep. Ben Chandler (D-Ky.), the letter also mentioned targeting Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, in his race against Republican Elliott “Spike” Maynard. And when West Virginia and Republican politics are mentioned in the same breath, you can be sure that Massey Energy’s Don Blankenship is eager to get involved:

In his letter, Nicholson said his company and three others — Massey Energy, Alliance Resource Partners and Natural Resource Partners — “have already had some theoretical discussions about such an effort and would like to proceed in developing an action plan.”

The bill includes legislation proposed by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) that would reform the Interior Department’s drilling oversight infrastructure and put new regulations on the oil drilling. It also includes the Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act of 2010, which, according to a summary of the bill, “provides whistleblower and anti-retaliation protections to workers on the Outer Continental Shelf” and “protects worker safety by improving federal agency coordination.”

More to come on this following an 11 a.m. conference call on the legislation.

For now, here are the bills. Note that there have been changes to the Rahall bill since it passed committee earlier this month, including adding provisions from oil spill response bills in the House Energy & Commerce Committee and the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee. Here’s a summary of the revised Rahall bill.

Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), the chairmen of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, respectively, sent letters to 10 well operators today asking for data meant to help determine whether the chemicals used in fracturing could contaminate drinking water.

Waxman and Markey sent similar letters to 14 oil and gas service companies in February and May, but the companies said they did not have the data the lawmakers requested. “In their responses, these companies identified well operators, rather than well service companies, as the entities most likely to maintain data on the proximity of specific wells to underground sources of drinking water,” today’s letters say. “Similarly, the well service companies directed us to the well operators, such as your company, for information on the recovery and disposal of fluids and water that flow back to the surface of wells that have been hydraulically fractured.”

The lawmaker’s efforts come as the House Natural Resources Committee last week passed oil spill response legislation that includes a provision requiring that “the list of chemicals (as well as information about those chemicals) used in drilling or completing a well [be] posted online within 30 days after completion of drilling the well,” according to a section-by-section summary of the bill. The bill also includes an exemption “to keep proprietary information from being publicly disclosed,” the summary says. Industry has long argued that the specific chemical mixture it uses in the practice is proprietary.

The legislation — Rep. Nick Rahall’s (D-W.Va.) Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act — is expected to be a main component of an oil spill response package being cobbled together by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s spokesperson, said he did not know if the final bill would address hydraulic fracturing. “No one can get this specific at this point,” he said.

Meanwhile, there is legislation pending in the House and the Senate that would require that industry release the chemicals used in fracturing. The bill would also give the Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate the practice. But the legislation has been put on hold while EPA conducts a study on fracturing. Initial results of the study are slated to be released in 2012.

The bill, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act, is already coming under fire from the oil industry, which argues that it would result in significant job losses. The American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s powerful trade group, released a statement immediately after the bill passed arguing that “provisions of the legislation will kill jobs, stifle economic recovery and punish an already-reeling Gulf Coast community.”

The Independent Petroleum Association of America, which represents independent oil and gas producers, followed suit, arguing that the legislation is short-sighted. “[T]he CLEAR Act is focused more on perceived short-term political gain than on actual solutions. … Unfortunately, leaders in Congress are now legislating in a vacuum, as the cause of the ongoing Gulf incident has yet to be determined.”

The CLEAR Act, authored by Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.V.), the committee chair, was originally introduced in Sept. 2009, but was updated last month in light of the Gulf oil spill. The bill would restructure the now-defunct Minerals Management Service into three distinct bureaus in order to separate the service’s environmental review, permitting and revenue collection functions. Here’s a section-by-section summary of the bill.

Passage of the CLEAR Act comes as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is meeting today with five key committee chairs to discuss the path forward for a broad oil spill response package.

Byrd took to railing against the coal industry in his last months on the issue of mine safety and the need to join the clean energy push. But given that coal is West Virginia’s state rock, his replacement is expected to be pretty friendly to the industry. And the money won’t change that: Some of the leading candidates to fill Byrd’s seat have received hefty campaign donations from coal company PACs and company leaders.

Gov. Joe Manchin (D) — Though Manchin has repeatedly denied that he will consider appointing himself to the seat, he is almost certain to run for it in the special election — whenever that occurs. From Manchin’s 2000 campaign for secretary of state through his re-election campaign as governor in 2008, he received $281,963 in campaign donations from individuals and companies related to mining, including $12,250 from company PACs. It’s important to note here that the figures for individuals include donations from all people who work in mining-related industries, not just top company officials. According to Follow the Money, a National Institute on Money in State Politics website that tracks campaign donations at the state politics level, the company PAC donations to Manchin included a $500 donation in 2000 from Massey Energy, the company that has been under recent scrutiny for its record of safety violations in the wake of the deadly explosion at its Upper Big Branch Mine in early April.

State Senate President Earl Ray Tomblin (D) – Tomblin, who in his elected role also officially functions as the state’s lieutenant governor, is a likely candidate both as a caretaker for Byrd’s seat and as Manchin’s replacement as governor — at least on an interim basis — if Manchin wins the seat. Tomblin received a total of $26,150 in campaign contributions from individuals and companies related to the coal mining industry between the 2000 and 2008 campaigns, $9,600 of which came directly from the companies. He is also noteworthy for being one of the few Democratic politicians to receive a contribution from Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship, who almost exclusively donates to Republicans. Tomblin received $2,000 in contributions from Blankenship during his 2004 re-election campaign, as well as $700 from Massey over the course of his 2000 and 2004 campaigns.

Former Gov. Bob Wise (D) – Wise served one term as governor between 2001 and 2005, declining to run for re-election following news of an extramarital affair and stiff primary challenges from Manchin and others. Though Wise served for nine terms in office before his election as governor, I was only able to find campaign finance records for his House races in 1998 and 2000, as well as records from the lead-up to his aborted 2004 re-election bid. During the 1998 election cycle, Wise received $5,500 from the mining industry — $2,550 from individuals and $3,000 from industry PACs, according to OpenSecrets.org. During the lead-up to the 2000 House race, which he abandoned to run for governor, Wise did not raise any money from the mining industry. During 2002 and 2003, when Wise still planned to run for re-election, he received $129,900 in donations from the mining industry, including $5,000 from industry PACs.

Reps. Alan Mollohan (D) and Nick Rahall (D) – While appointing a sitting congressman to a Senate seat has its pitfalls — you run the risk of losing the House seat in a special election — both Mollohan and Rahall have been mentioned as possible placeholders.

This is probably a more likely scenario for Mollohan, as he won’t be in the House next year anyway following his defeat in the primary election (although of course that raises its own questions). Mollohan received $179,750 in donations from the mining industry between 1989 and 2010. Rahall has received $125,000 from the mining industry since 1989.

It’s important to note that some of the possible Republican candidates for the special election have also received substantial donations from the mining industry. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R), who at the moment is waffling about jumping into the race, has received $328,700 from the mining industry since her successful 2000 campaign for the House seat left vacant by Wise. Former Secretary of State Betty Ireland (R) received $5,150 from the mining industry during her 2004 campaign, $1,000 of which came from Blankenship.

Rahall wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking for the government to take “legal action to recover damages owed to the United States for lost royalties.”

The issue of royalties has largely been left aside in the flurry of congressional action since the spill. When a company drills in U.S. waters, it signs a lease with the government and pays royalties for the oil it draws from the ground. Rahall says that the government’s lease with BP stipulates an 18.75 percent royalty.

The challenge will be to figure out precisely how much oil has spilled, and thereby how much money the government lost as a result of the spill.

“Although there is no precise figure for the amount of oil and gas flowing from the well, recent government estimates indicate that at least 500,000 barrels of oil and hundreds of millions of cubic feet of natural gas have been lost, which are currently wreaking havoc on the ocean and coastal environment in the Gulf of Mexico,” Rahall wrote to Holder.

The 18.75 percent royalty would work out to somewhere between $10 and $40 million for oil spilled thus far, depending on the spill estimate used.

The Gauley River, among the top white water rafting destinations on the East Coast — and one estimated to bring the state $16 million each year — is now among the most imperiled rivers in the country as a result of the mountaintop coal mining in its watershed, according to American Rivers, an environmental group that ranks the nation’s most endangered rivers each year.

For 2010, the Gauley ranks third, behind only the Upper Delaware River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The reason?

Mountaintop removal mining has buried nearly 2,000 miles of Appalachian streams, contaminated drinking water, impaired water quality for river recreation, increased water treatment costs for industry, displaced some communities and increased susceptibility to flooding for others. Despite escalating environmental and community costs, more mountaintop removal mining projects have been proposed to access the remaining coal seams in Appalachia.

Ward points out the congressional angle to this tale:

In 1988, the Gauley received some federal protections as the Gauley River National Recreation Area, under legislation pushed through by Rep. Nick J. Rahall, D-W.Va. Rahall, though, has opposed EPA’s efforts to crack down on pollution from mountaintop removal mining.

Indeed, in February, Rahall single-handedly took credit for blocking legislation to prevent mining companies from burying Appalachian streams with mine waste.

“I blocked it,” he told the Beckley-based Register-Herald.

“I kept [supporters] from even having a hearing on it. It would have passed Congress overwhelmingly. It was a freebie. Republicans would have voted to end mountaintop removal.”

Since it’s not an issue in their districts, he said, “they’d have voted to abolish it in a heartbeat.”

Another means of wiping out the practice would be to amend the surface mining and reclamation law which Rahall authored in his first year in Congress in 1977.

“Guess where that has to go?” Rahall asked, according to the Register-Herald. “The Natural Resources Committee.

“Guess who’s chairman? Me.”

Mollohan has been in Congress since 1983 and had easily fended off challenges since his first re-election bid, garnering at least 64 percent of the vote in every general election. Oliverio, who made ethics and integrity the focal points of his campaign, repeatedly blasted Mollohan over his involvement in a series of earmarking scandals. Though the Justice Department investigated Mollohan’s personal finances and his involvement in these scandals, it never charged him. Mollohan’s loss was not a total surprise, however, as pundits had generally predicted he would face a tough battle for re-nomination.

Oliverio thanked voters and said he looked forward to the general election campaign.

“Our campaign message has been one of fiscal responsibility and one of restoring integrity and I think those two themes really resonated with the voters in the Northern Panhandle,” he said.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen said in a statement that he remains optimistic about his party’s chances of holding the seat.

“This was a tough and spirited primary process and we are confident that this historically Democratic seat will remain Democratic this November,” he said.

Former state GOP Chairman David McKinley, who won in a six-person primary tonight, will face Oliverio in the general election.

West Virginia

Elsewhere in West Virginia, Reps. Shelley Moore Capito (R) and Nick Rahall (D) both won their primaries. Former nun Virginia Lynch Graf (D) is Capito’s general election opponent, while former state Supreme Court justice Elliott Maynard (R) will challenge Rahall.

Nebraska

Nebraska’s three Republican representatives fared better, as Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry and Adrian Smith all easily won re-nomination. Author and former journalist Ivy Harper (D) led slightly in her primary bid to challenge Fortenberry. State legislator Tom White (D) will challenge Terry, while hospital chaplain Rebekah Davis (D) will face Smith.

Gov. Dave Heineman (R) easily won his party’s nomination, while his challenger, businessman Mark Lakers (D), was unopposed in his primary.

Georgia

The House seat Rep. Nathan Deal (R) vacated remains unfilled, as no candidate got a majority of the votes. Deal resigned to focus on his bid for governor. Former state Rep. Tom Graves (R) and former state Sen. Lee Hawkins (R) will compete in a June 8 runoff election, which only decides who will hold the seat through Jan. 3, 2011. Georgia’s regular primary election will be held July 20.

Update: The Sioux City Journal declared Harper the primary winner Thursday morning. She edged out her nearest opponent, writer and musician Jessica Turek, by 390 votes.