Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) today introduced a bipartisan measure to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. From her news release, “Sen. Murkowski Offers Disapproval Resolution to Block EPA Endangerment of Economy“:

Murkowski’s resolution – co-sponsored by 35 Republicans and three Democrats – comes in the wake of the EPA’s recent endangerment finding, which will result in damaging new regulations that endanger America’s economy.

“As the EPA moves closer and closer to issuing these regulations, I continue to believe that this command-and-control approach is our worst option for reducing the emissions blamed for climate change,” Murkowski said. 

EPA’s proposed rules are an attempt by the executive branch to supersede the legislative branch’s policymaking role in government, the kind of power play that lawmakers traditionally reject. Murkowski addresses that issue.

“Our bipartisan resolution deals with an incredibly important question: whether or not members of this body are comfortable with the actions EPA will take under its current interpretation of the Clean Air Act. I’m not comfortable with those actions, and neither are the senators who have already agreed to add their names to this effort,” Murkowski said. “The Clean Air Act was written by Congress to regulate criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases, and its implementation remains subject to oversight and guidance from elected representatives. We should continue our work to pass meaningful energy and climate legislation, but in the meantime, we cannot turn a blind eye to the EPA’s efforts to impose back-door climate regulations with no input from Congress.”

Sen. Murkowski’s floor speech thoroughly examines the issues and notes the broad opposition from such groups as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy.
Joining the Republicans are three Democrats, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Sen. Lincoln said in a statement, “Heavy-handed EPA regulation, as well as the current cap and trade bills in Congress, will cost us jobs and put us at an even greater competitive disadvantage to China, India and others.”

Bipartisan and bicameral opposition, as well. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has introduced H.R. 391 to exempt greenhouse cases from Clean Air Act regulation. The bill has 151 cosponsors and Blackburn is seeking to have it dis charged from committee. Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) in December introduced H.R. 4396, to achieve the same goal through the language, “The term ‘air pollutant’ shall not include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride.” There are two cosponsors: Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK) and Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO).

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) this afternoon spoke on the Senate floor to announce her intention to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding through legislation. From her news release, “Murkowski Seeks to Halt EPA Endangerment of U.S. Economy”:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, today announced her intention to file a disapproval resolution to stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Murkowski’s resolution comes in the wake of the agency’s recent endangerment finding, which will result in damaging new regulations that endanger America’s economy.

“I remain committed to reducing emissions through a policy that will protect our environment and strengthen our economy, but EPA’s backdoor climate regulations achieve neither of those goals,” Murkowski said. “EPA regulation must be taken off the table so that we can focus on more responsible approaches to dealing with global climate change.”

While the administration claims the endangerment finding is merely an affirmation of the science behind global climate change, Murkowski said that aspect is just the tip of the iceberg.

“The EPA administrator’s move has thrown open the door to expensive and intrusive government regulation – as far from a market-based solution as we can possibly imagine,” Murkowski said. “The endangerment finding is aptly named. It endangers jobs, it endangers economic growth, and it endangers American competitiveness, while setting the stage for backdoor bureaucratic intrusion into the lives of Americans on an unprecedented scale.

The Congressional Review Act allows the filing of a resolution of disapproval to executive branch regulations. It has been used once before, in 2001 to reverse President Clinton’s last-minute issuance of workplace ergonomics standards. Once Murkowski files the resolution, it will go to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and if not acted upon, can be discharged if 30 Senators sign a petition. A disapproval resolution cannot be filibustered.

This is an issue that should unite Republicans and Democrats alike: The Executive Branch has ignored Congress’ constitutional authority to make policy, and is through a regulatory power grab attempting to control huge portions of the economy — and people’s lives — by limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

From Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), commenting on Senate inaction Thursday on her amendment to put a one-year moratorium on the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from stationary sources.

Democrats objected to consideration of the amendment, stifling debate on the devastating impact EPA regulations on carbon dioxide from non-mobile sources will have on the economy.

“There’s a legitimate policy debate that needs to be had on this issue,” Murkowski said. “Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues across the aisle are not interested in discussing the merits of my amendment.”

Murkowski has said the amendment would help avoid the “economic train wreck” that would result from the EPA regulating stationary sources of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.

The Oil and Gas Journal has a good story about the politicking that went into blocking Murkowski’s amendment. The upshot is that the EPA could soon become the single most important economy policy setting actor in the nation. Hard to see how any elected lawmaker could support that. We’ll look forward to the re-election boasts: “During my tenure, we successfully abdicated our policymaking responsibilities to an executive branch agency.”

The NAM had “key voted” the amendment, but since the measure was not considered, the provision will not be used to rate Senators’ records on manufacturing policies during the 111th Congress.

The Senate ultimately passed H.R. 2996, the Interior and Environment appropriations bill. The vote was 77-21.

Politico leads its article about Sen. Murkowski’s amendment to halt EPA regulation of stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions with a reaction from Carol Browner, the White House climate adviser:

“We don’t think the amendment is a good idea,” White House climate advisor Carol Browner said on Tuesday. “It could get you a situation where activities that should go forward — like investments in carbon capture and storage — wouldn’t be able to go forward.”

That reasoning appears to be that these investments will never take place without EPA regulation. Strange, and the view evinces a lack of confidence in the policymaking branch of government, Congress, as least when it comes to enacting the Administration’s goals.

But then, reacting to the (outrageous and overreaching) decision by a panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to allow Clean Air Act lawsuits against stationary source emitters, Browner commented:

“The courts are starting to take control of this issue. if they were to follow this out, they would be setting the standards,” Browner told reporters at a separate briefing in New York Tuesday. “Obviously, that’s not something that anybody wants…Everything is moving towards getting legislation done because it is the best way to do it.”

That reasoning should lead to strong support for the Murkowski amendment. Legislation is the best way. Indeed.

Or maybe the argument is that the end justifies the means.

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) plans to introduce an amendment today to H.R. 2966, the Interior and Environment appropriations bill, to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from spending money on regulating carbon dioxide from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act for a period of one year.

From her news release: “Very clearly, stationary sources must reduce emissions in order to bring our nation to its climate goal. But forcing them to do so through the Clean Air Act would be one of the least efficient and most damaging ways to pursue that goal. It would be rife with unintended consequences, and could be devastating for our economy.”

The National Association of Manufacturers on Wednesday identified the amendment as  “Key Vote,” that is, one of the important votes of the 111th Congress that will be used to gauge a Senator’s record of support on manufacturing issues.  From the “Key Vote” letter signed by Jay Timmons, NAM’s Executive Vice President:

At a time when our economy is attempting to recover from the most severe recession since the 1930s, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, with no guidance from Congress, will establish disincentives for the long-term investments that would be necessary to grow jobs and expedite economic recovery. The Murkowski Amendment seeks to ensure a healthy and productive discussion in Congress on harmonizing our nation’s energy, environmental and economic needs before the EPA starts regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from stationary sources, including manufacturing facilities. 

And …

Supporting the Murkowski Amendment does not convey opposition to climate change policy; it merely allows Congress to do its job. We concur with the sentiment in a Washington Post September 21 editorial, “Regulating Carbon.” It noted that the EPA “is preparing to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act,” which “is breathtakingly unsuited to the great task of battling global warming….Yet if Congress does not act, it’s likely that the EPA will. It won’t be pretty.”

VN:F [1.9.7_1111]

please wait...

Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar continued the Department’s series of four meetings on developing Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas resources with a daylong session in Anchorage on Tuesday. From AP:

[Governor] Palin warned against the country’s dependence on foreign oil coming from “dangerous regimes” that she said don’t like Americans. With production falling on the North Slope, the amount of oil carried in the trans-Alaska pipeline could fall below carrying capacity in the next decade, the governor said.

“Alaska has decades of safely developing our oil and gas,” Palin said. “There are solutions here in Alaska to America’s energy challenges.”

Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Mark Begich, D-Alaska, sent Salazar a similar message: Alaska knows how to drill for oil and gas in an environmentally responsible way. [See - Bipartisan support!]

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, said Alaska will be left out if it doesn’t act now, especially with China and Russia already staking claims to the North Pole.

“My interest in this is jobs,” Young said.

Gov. Palin (news release) correctly brings energy security back into the focus. How exactly is the United States supposed to free itself from dependence on foreign energy suppliers if the country abandons domestic oil and gas production?

Consider Alaska’s potential alone: The Minerals Management Service estimates that Alaska’s OCS contains 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (or a total of 53 billion barrels of oil equivalent). In comparison, total production from the North Slope since 1977 has been 15.5 billion barrels.

The hearings (the last one is tomorrow in San Francisco) help form the public record for the MMS. In January, MMS released its 2010-2015 five-year leasing plan, including proposals to open new offshore areas to oil and natural gas development. Coming into the Department, Secretary Salazar delayed the plan’s implementation (public comments were heavily in favor of energy development), directed Interior scientists to produce more reports on oil and gas potential off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and extended the public comment period to September.

In case you couldn’t make it to Anchorage, the American Petroleum Institute has created a website to allow the public to comment on the proposed five-year leasing program. Go here. Lots of good resources and facts.

From the Oil & Gas Journal, “Murkowski urges directional drilling for ANWR“:

WASHINGTON, DC, Feb. 20 — US Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alas.) said on Feb. 19 that she plans to propose using directional drilling on state land and waters in initial Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) oil and gas resources development, with no surface occupancy.

That approach means there would be no occupancy, pipelines, construction, or facilities that would impact the refuge or its wildlife, she said in her annual address to Alaska’s legislature in Juneau.

“America will get the energy it needs, and those concerned about the impact to wilderness will be able to enjoy and preserve the refuge exactly as it is today. It is the best of both worlds,” she maintained.

Murkowski said her bill would take advantage of technological improvements in underground oil development to allow state land-based production platforms to siphon crude oil and gas from beneath the refuge.

Interesting. So it’s the “pristine” ANWR that opponents of north slope energy development want to protect, or is it any drilling, at all? Murkowski’s bill takes the measure of the environmentalists.

(Bumped to the top: NAM’s executive vice president, Jay Timmons, has been blogging this week from the National Democratic Convention in Denver. Today, Timmons reacts to Sen. John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, drawing on his experience as the former executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Comimttee.)

While the pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was a surprise to many, it was clearly a calculated move by Senator John McCain to also make history in this year’s election. A trailblazer for women, she could be an attractive alternative for those who had believed Hillary Clinton would have been the strongest pick for Barack Obama.

Governor Palin, a star of pro-life party members, will help ease the concerns of social conservatives who were worried McCain would choose a pro-choice Republican (or Democrat) to be his second in command. She is a strong executive (the only candidate for President or Vice President this year who has such experience) and does not shy from difficult decisions. She won admiration from her fellow Alaskans when she returned to the job of Governor last year just three days after giving birth to her fifth child.

She has adhered to a fairly conservative fiscal policy as well (although Alaska has quirky budgetary provisions). On energy, Governor Palin could be helpful in convincing Senator McCain to support development on the north slope of Alaska near ANWR.

No stranger to talking tough challenges, she defeated an incumbent Governor – a fellow Republican – in the 2006 gubernatorial primary. This was the same Governor who appointed her to head an agency in his administration, a job she later resigned in protest over her concern that ethical standards were not being followed.

The Governor is an incredibly engaging public official and will be a strong advocate for a McCain presidency on the trail. In 2004, I sat down with her in a local restaurant near Wasilla, Alaska, to discuss her interest in running for the U.S. Senate against fellow Republican and incumbent Lisa Murkowski. Armed with polling information and precinct data, I was prepared to discuss her thoughts on whether she could win the race. She was only interested in talking about how she thought she could make an impact on national public policy – a focus on fiscal discipline, lower taxes on working Americans and strong support for the military and exporting freedom.

I was thoroughly impressed. And Americans are likely to be impressed with her story and record as well. John McCain has chosen wisely.