Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Mark Begich (D-AK) released a joint statement on Wednesday blasting the introduction of S. 600, the “Use It or Lose It” bill. They’re exactly right. From “Sens. Murkowski and Begich Opposed to ‘Use it or Lose it’: Unwarranted Fees on Energy Companies Will Result in Less Production, More Imports, and Higher Prices.”

Murkowski, the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said the bill was an attempt to shift blame for rising gasoline prices to energy producers.

“While I don’t accept my colleagues’ analysis, I am glad to see them acknowledge that increasing domestic oil production will help address rising energy prices,” Murkowski said. “Unfortunately, their bill is misguided. Our laws already reflect a use-it-or-lose-it policy; that’s why we have lease terms and a range of lease fees. It is the current administration’s intentional slowdown of the permitting process that is stopping millions of acres onshore and offshore from producing the energy we need. In Alaska, ConocoPhillips and Shell have both seen work on promising oil projects blocked by government obstruction. To hold them responsible – and force them to pay for delays that are not their fault – is simply absurd.”

Sen. Begich: (continue reading…)

Reaction and debate excerpts on the Senate’s 47-53 vote defeating the motion to proceed to S.J.Res. 26, the resolution disapproving the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) had perhaps the strongest, clearest statement of all. From his release and floor statement, “A VOTE FOR WEST VIRGINIA’S ECONOMIC FUTURE“:

I rise today to lend my support to Senator Murkowski’s Resolution of Disapproval for one simple but enormously important reason: because I believe we must send a strong and urgent message that the fate of our economy, our manufacturing industries, and our workers should never be placed solely in the hands of the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

I have long maintained that the Congress, the elected voice of the people – and not the unelected EPA – must decide major economic and energy policy. It is our job – because we represent the people of this country. We are accountable to them.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), sponsor of S.J.Res. 26, issued a statement after the vote, “Public Deserved Vote on EPA Climate Regulations“:

“I had hopes, for the security of our economy, that we would prevail today,” Murkowski said. “But regardless of the outcome, I believe it’s important that every member of the Senate is on the record on whether they think the EPA regulation is the appropriate way to address climate issues.

All Republicans and six Democrats voted in favor of proceeding to consideration of the resolution, but it lost 47-53.

Murkowski, a strong proponent of moving the nation toward a cleaner energy future, said the disapproval resolution would have avoided the coming “economic train wreck” EPA regulation of greenhouse gases is expected to cause.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member on the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, issued a statement, “BIPARTISAN SENATE MAJORITY AGREES TO REIN IN OBAMA EPA ON GLOBAL WARMING“:

No matter how one interprets today’s vote on the Murkowski resolution, one thing is absolutely clear: there is a bipartisan majority in the US Senate that supports either a delay of, or an outright ban on, the Obama EPA’s job-killing global warming agenda.

While I absolutely support overturning the endangerment finding, I also stand ready to work with my colleagues on alternative approaches that would give Congress more time to develop rational energy policies and restrain EPA’s ability to impose backdoor energy taxes on the American people.

The consequences of this issue are far too grave to stand down after today’s vote. EPA’s global warming agenda must be stopped. (continue reading…)

The Hill reports that some Senate Democrats may attempt to have it both ways on whether the Executive Branch should set climate and energy policy  by supporting a resolution by Sen. Jay Rockefeller that would put a two-year moratorium on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.

What message does that send? 

• With this vote, we affirm Congress’ policymaking role in the American system of government. Well, at least for two years .
• EPA regulation would be disastrous for the economy. Therefore we stand strongly against its destruction of jobs and prosperity. Well, at least for two years.
• We recognize that EPA regulation is wrong, but important political constituencies demand some sort of action — even if it is EPA command-and-control. We believe this resolution represents a reasonable compromise. Well, at least for two years.

Do they not recognize that uncertainty is the enemy of investment, jobs and economic recovery?

George Will’s column today is timely and on point, “Jobs report a nightmare for Obama progressivism.”

Today investors and employers are certain that uncertainties are multiplying.

They are uncertain about when interest rates will rise, and by how much. They do not know how badly the economy will be burdened by the expiration, approximately 200 days from now, of the Bush tax cuts on high earners — aka investors and employers.

They know the costs of ObamaCare will be higher than was advertised, but not how much higher. They do not know the potential costs of cap-and-trade and other energy policies.

They do not know if “card check” — abolition of the right of secret ballot elections in unionization decisions — will pass, or how much the economy will be injured by making unions more muscular.

They do not know how the functioning of the financial sector will be altered and impeded by the many new regulatory rules and agencies created by the financial reform legislation.

Let uncertainty multiply. The recovery is not a priority. Jobs can come later.  The economy will not get well, at least for two years.

With the debate under way on S.J.Res. 26, the Murkowski resolution of disapproval,  we again note these communications from the National Association of Manufacturers:

• A statement from Executive Vice President Jay Timmons, “Manufacturers Urge Senate to Pass Murkowski Resolution“
• NAM’s Key Vote letter in support of S.J.Res. 26
• A letter urging passage from 24 business and manufacturing trade associations, NAM included.

The NAM’s energy policy experts are Tweeting the debate at www.twitter.com/Shopfloor_NAM

(ao) is Alicia Oman
(km) is Keith McCoy

The most popular hashtag seems to be #Murkowski.

Twenty-four trade associations joined Tuesday in sending a letter to U.S. Senators expressing support for S.J.Res. 26, the resolution to disapprove the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The National Association of Manufacturers signed onto the letter. Excerpt:

The trade associations listed below write to ask you to support Senator Murkowski’s greenhouse gas (GHG) “endangerment” resolution – S.J. Res 26. The measure will prevent EPA from establishing a de facto new national energy policy via regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA). We also urge you to reject any measures to codify EPA regulation of GHGs under the CAA through legislatively affirming EPA’s “tailoring” rule or another similar measure.

While our organizations may differ on some subjects with respect to approaches towards climate change, we are united in opposition to unilateral EPA action to regulate GHGs under the CAA. We urge you to support the bipartisan S.J. Res. 26 and reject any attempt to codify EPA’s “tailoring” rule into law.

The supporters:

Lots of employers, lots of JOBS represented by these groups.

The National Association of Manufacturers also issued a statement from Executive Vice President Jay Timmons, “Manufacturers Urge Senate to Pass Murkowski Resolution.”

The National Association of Manufacturers today sent a “Key Vote” letter to U.S. Senators expressing manufacturers’ support for S.J.Res. 26, the resolution of disapproval to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions without Congressional approval. From the letter:

Manufacturers support a comprehensive, federal climate policy within a framework that will cause no economic harm while granting sufficient time to deploy low-carbon technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration, renewable energy and a renewed commitment to nuclear energy.

Prior to the onset of the financial crisis in 2008, energy inflation and price volatility were major contributors to the loss of approximately 3.7 million high-wage manufacturing jobs. Manufacturers use one-third of our nation’s energy. Because of the impact a federal climate policy will have on the nation’s energy future, this is an issue that must be debated by Congress without pre-emption from a federal agency.

EPA regulations, with no guidance from Congress, could establish disincentives for the long-term investments needed to grow jobs and expedite economic recovery. The Murkowski resolution seeks to ensure a healthy and productive discussion in Congress on harmonizing our nation’s energy, environmental and economic needs. That discussion must take place before the EPA starts regulating GHG emissions from stationary sources, including manufacturing facilities.

EPA lacks the authority to write its own law, its own version of the Clean Air Act, to control greenhouse gas emissions, which by extension controls economic activity. You could be a believer in stringent controls but still recognize that the American system of representative democracy does not grant the power to issue such controls to an executive branch agency. S.J.Res. 26 serves as a clear test for Senators whether they really believe that Congress is the policymaking branch of government.

Senate debate is expected Thursday. Key Vote letters are used by the NAM in ranking the members of Congress on their support for manufacturing.

On the federal level, that’s Congress.

From Forbes.com, from former Sen. George Allen (R-VA) and Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “The EPA’s Shocking Power Grab“:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is carrying out one of the biggest power grabs in American history. The agency has positioned itself to regulate fuel economy, set climate policy for the nation and amend the Clean Air Act–powers never delegated to it by Congress. It has done this by declaring greenhouse gas emissions a danger to public health and welfare, in a proceeding known as the “endangerment finding.”

On Tuesday the U.S. Senate will debate and vote on Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s resolution of disapproval to overturn the endangerment finding. The resolution is absolutely necessary to restore democratic accountability in climate policymaking.

During my days in North Dakota, I was always impressed by the state Senators who resisted the encroachment on their constitutional authority by the executive branch. The lawmakers didn’t have to mention Montesquieu or the Founding Fathers to evoke the separation of powers in making such clear statements of principle as, “The Legislature is the policymaking branch of government.”

You would hope members of Congress would just as jealously guard their own constitutional role in our republic.

Roll Call, “ Kerry Sparks Fight on Climate“:

In an already challenging election year for the majority, Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) rush to pass a climate change bill has many Democrats scratching their heads and charging that their 2004 presidential nominee could further imperil vulnerable Members this fall.

Climate change had been considered all but dead this year, and Senate Democrats have little appetite to take up the controversial issue after the beating that they have endured over their as-yet-unfinished health care reform efforts.

The Hill, “Sen. Kerry lobbies for climate compromise; actual bill to come“:

The three senators writing compromise climate legislation are lobbying business groups in hopes of winning their support for the effort. One obstacle: the absence of an actual bill…[snip]

As he tries to sell the legislation, Kerry is de-emphasizing its relation to climate change.

“What we are talking about is a jobs bill. It is not a climate bill. It is a jobs bill, and it is a clean air bill. It is a national security, energy independence bill,” he told reporters in the Capitol this week.

A national security, energy independence bill? Really?

From The Anchorage Daily News, “Lieberman to Murkowski: Forget ANWR drilling“:

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said Wednesday that opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling might be the price of her swing vote in favor of energy and climate legislation. But The Hill reports today that Sen. Joe Lieberman — a longtime opponent of ANWR drilling — says ANWR drilling would be a “deal breaker” in his attempt to craft a bipartisan climate bill.

From a news release, office of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), “Rockefeller Introduces Legislation to Suspend EPA Action and Protect Clean Coal State Economies.” The Senator said:

Today, we took important action to safeguard jobs, the coal industry, and the entire economy as we move toward clean coal technology. This legislation will issue a two year suspension on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources—giving Congress the time it needs to address an issue as complicated and expansive as our energy future. Congress, not the EPA, must be the ideal decision-maker on such a challenging issue.

Two weeks ago, I sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson challenging EPA’s potential regulation of greenhouse gases. Administrator Jackson responded quickly and showed some willingness to move the agency’s timetable for regulation to the end of 2010. This is a positive change and good progress, but I am concerned it may not be enough time. We must set this delay in stone and give Congress enough time to consider a comprehensive energy bill to develop the clean coal technologies we need. At a time when so many people are hurting, we need to put decisions about clean coal and our energy future into the hands of the people and their elected representatives, not a federal environmental agency.

House legislation is being introduced by Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV).

The National Association of Manufacturers opposes EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, and the NAM contends that the agency’s attempt to hit only large, stationary emitters lacks any statutory basis. Sen. Rockefeller’s legislation is a move in the right direction.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who has sponsored a Congressional resolution of regulatory disapproval (S.J.Res. 26), issued a statement on Sen. Rockefeller’s bill:

Senator Rockefeller’s legislation is further evidence of the growing, bipartisan, and bicameral resistance to EPA’s back-door climate regulations. Given the overwhelming opposition to these actions, I’m hopeful that this bill will draw additional support and advance quickly.

If that does not occur, the disapproval resolution is guaranteed consideration in the Senate. It’s imperative that senators have an opportunity to vote on whether or not they support EPA’s costly, unilateral and unprecedented attempt to impose these command-and-control regulations.

• New York Times, “Coal-State Dems Unveil Bills Stalling EPA Emission Curbs“
• Bloomberg, “Rockefeller Introduces Bill to Delay EPA Carbon Rules“
• Politico, “Rockefeller aims to block EPA rules“

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) last week led a group of eight Democratic Senators who, in a letter, challenged the Environmental Protection Agency on plans to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. As Sen. Rockefeller said in a release announcing the letter:

At a time when so many people are hurting, we need to put the decisions about our energy future in to the hands of the people and their elected representatives-especially on issues impacting clean coal. EPA actions in this area would have enormous implications and these issues need to be handled carefully and appropriately dealt with by the Congress, not in isolation by a federal environmental agency.

It’s not just in hard times, either. Policy decisions should always be put in the hands of the people and their elected representatives. The executive branch regulates and administrates, but in a representative democracy, it doesn’t arrogate policy decisions to itself.

Joining Rockefeller in the letter were Sens. Mark Begich (AK), Robert Byrd (WV), Sherrod Brown (OH), Robert Casey (PA), Clare McCaskill (MO), Carl Levin (MI), and Max Baucus (MT). The full letter is here.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) this week welcomed the Senators’ letter and noted the bipartisan support for her resolution of disapproval (S.J.Res. 26) that would stop the EPA’s power grab. In a release, she said:

Congress remains the appropriate body to develop climate policy. Having evaluated and pursued other options to respond to EPA’s proposed regulations in the past, I’m convinced that alternatives to the disapproval resolution will face a difficult path forward. Economically damaging regulations will be no more acceptable at some later date.

I commend my colleagues for becoming more engaged in this important issue and hope they will show their commitment by signing on as co-sponsors of the disapproval resolution. It’s time to take the threat of EPA’s command-and-control regulations off the table.