HELENA -- When Gov. Brian Schweitzer's signature bill promoting "clean and green" energy development crashed and burned at the Legislature last week, the governor quickly blamed Republicans senators for their refusal to support it.

But the governor's finger-pointing omitted someone who bears just as much of the blame: himself.

The fate of this bill also feeds a growing perception among those working on energy issues at the Capitol: That while Schweitzer talks a good game on energy development in Montana, he seems less than committed to shaping policy that influences what may actually happen on the ground.

Schweitzer mostly dismisses this talk as the sour grapes of political foes and second-guessers.

"On one hand, they say I'm a bully who pushes too much," he says. "Then, on the very next day, they say I don't talk to them enough."

But it's pretty hard to dismiss what happened -- and didn't happen -- with his energy tax-incentive bill.

Senate Bill 562, which offers property-tax cuts in Montana for new pipelines, power lines and power plants that produce or transport "green" energy products, wasn't introduced until March 26, three months into the session. Under the bill, green energy includes wind power and coal projects that "capture" carbon dioxide, a contributor to global warming.

That gave the Senate Taxation Committee and full Senate just one week to examine and pass this lengthy, significant bill.

Republicans, and some Democrats, balked at taking quick action, leading to Monday's 25-25 vote on the Senate floor that left the bill stalled in committee. All 24 Republicans and Sen. Jim Elliott, D-Trout Creek, who chairs the Senate Taxation Committee, voted against bringing the bill to the floor.

Partisanship certainly played a role in this vote. Republicans saw a chance to bloody the Democratic governor's nose on a pet project.

But Republicans and others have been asking Schweitzer since last summer for details on bills he planned for the 2007 Legislature, to enable the environmentally friendly coal, wind, oil and other energy development he's been promoting nationwide, from appearances on "60 Minutes" to speeches in Washington, D.C.

Republicans said they were eager to work with him on the issue, because they've long supported energy development in Montana. They also represent many of the rural areas where energy development is most likely to occur.

These potential allies felt boxed in and left out -- and understandably rebelled.

Said Sen. Jeff Essman, R-Billings, a Taxation Committee member: "If it was the major platform of my administration and I spent two years flying all around the country talking about it, it would have been Senate Bill 1, not Senate Bill 562."

The Schweitzer administration's excuse for the late introduction is that they needed time to iron out some wrinkles in the bill.

That may be so. But time and again, the Schweitzer administration has been curiously slow or absent when it comes to taking positions on actual energy policy. Some examples:

n The administration has never testified or taken a public position on the session's most prominent energy bill, House Bill 25, which ends customer choice for NorthWestern Energy and allows the company to build and own new power plants.

n Schweitzer hasn't weighed in on bills to promote small wind-power projects by county governments and a "green power" buying cooperative.

n The governor has been silent on several bills that may undermine a proposed coal-fired power plant in Great Falls.

n Schweitzer said nothing on the bill allowing the state to attempt to buy NorthWestern and turn it into a cooperative utility.

n The Schweitzer administration has taken no public position on one of the biggest economic/energy issues facing the state: Whether an Australian firm, Babcock & Brown Infrastructure, should be allowed to buy NorthWestern Energy, the state's largest electric-and-gas utility.

The case has been before the Public Service Commission for nearly a year, but the administration is not a party in the case and has no official presence at the proceeding.

When asked about this lack of visible involvement, Schweitzer says it's not his job to weigh in on every bill or issue that comes down the pike.

"They're not my bills," he says. "I don't have an opinion on everything until it arrives at my desk. And I will not offer an opinion on everything that doesn't arrive at my desk. Send me a bill, and I'll tell you my opinion."

Schweitzer says he's made it clear what he wants for energy development in the state, and is doing what he can to deliver on that vision.

He points to the "renewable portfolio standard" passed in 2005, requiring utilities to produce more wind and other renewable power; he says he has recruited two major transmission projects to the state and related wind-power projects; he says he's pushing for pipelines that can deliver "sequestered" carbon dioxide to eastern Montana oil producers, to help them boost production.

SB562 is a critical piece of the puzzle, he says, and it's not dead yet at the Legislature. Schweitzer says he expects the tax incentives to reappear in another bill, giving Republicans, and Democrats, another chance to vote for it.

Yet those pushing for energy development, on all sides of the issue, say they're not sure they see enough action behind the words.

"I wish he would get more involved in the process," says Rep. Alan Olson, R-Roundup, one of the Legislature's more vocal advocates of coal development. "I'm not here to slap him upside the head. But give us something to work with. I have no idea what he really wants to achieve."