EEI's Kuhn Outlines Views on Climate Bill

EEI President Tom Kuhn cited the partisanship in Washington and the closeness to the November elections as reasons that there were only modest chances that climate change legislation would clear Congress this year. Kuhn, who appeared on the Platts Energy Week broadcast on Sunday, along with Mark Crisson of the American Public Power Association, emphasized that "if you're going to have a price on carbon, and I think we need to if we're going to move forward, I think cap-and-trade is the best way to go."

Crisson said he was skeptical about cap and trade because there were insufficient emission allowances for utilities: "While it's failed to gain support, I wouldn't necessarily say it's off the table or dead," he said. "But this may provide an opportunity to explore other options."

Wrote Platts: "President Barack Obama last week continued to call on Congress to pass climate-change legislation, and Senator John Kerry, Democrat-Massachusetts, a leading advocate of such a measure, indicated he may try to rekindle the issue in a lame-duck session following the November congressional elections. Kuhn and Crisson also agreed that legislation on climate change, with provisions to mitigate the impact of emissions reductions on consumers, remains preferable to regulation by the Environmental Protection Act under the existing Clean Air Act."

Senate to Vote Today on Sen. Murkowski's EPA Resolution

The Senate was scheduled to vote today on the resolution from Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, to block EPA regulation of GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act, the Wall Street Journal reported today. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., predicted the resolution will be rejected, but added that "you never know until the vote takes place." Murkowski called the potential EPA regulation "an overreach by the executive branch" as the Obama administration threatened to veto her resolution if it passed the Senate.

Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and John Thune, R-S.D., criticized the administration for what Alexander called a bid by "an unelected group of bureaucrats" to regulate GHG emissions. Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., said he will support the resolution because "the fate of West Virginia's economy, our manufacturing industries, and our workers should not be solely in the hands of EPA." Among those saying they would vote against the resolution, ClimateWire reported, were Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.

Former EPA Associate General Counsel Lee DeHihns was quoted as saying of the resolution's impact: "The mood is getting really nasty. The resolution may polarize the Senate even further such that whatever support the moderates had may get diluted by the harsh feelings that are set up by this vote."

- Related story also appeared in The Hill.

N.Y. Times, Washington Post Argue Against EPA Restrictions

The New York Times and the Washington Post, in editorials published today, opposed efforts by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, to limit EPA's power to restrict GHG emissions.

The Times defended the Obama administration and EPA, calling Murkowski's Senate resolution "mischievous and potentially destructive." The editorial cautioned that Murkowski's proposal would "repudiate years of work by America's most reputable scientists and public health experts. It would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases from sources like refineries and power plants in the future. And it would send a discouraging message to a federal agency that appears to take its regulatory duties seriously, unlike the Minerals Management Service, which failed to police the oil industry."

The Post struck a more sanguine note, agreeing with Murkowski's stance that Congress should design a more efficient emissions-reduction policy. The Post wrote that the "next logical step is to insist that Congress pass a bill that establishes a price on carbon and rebates the proceeds to consumers, which would be cheaper and more predictable than EPA regulation alone. Instead, Ms. Murkowski favors eliminating Plan B--EPA regulation--before it's clear that Plan A--passing a serious climate bill--will proceed. Plan B isn't the best solution; that's why it's Plan B. But, if designed carefully, it would at least begin to scale back America's greenhouse-gas emissions, a job that it is critical to start as soon as possible. And it would keep pressure on lawmakers to pass climate legislation."

White House: Obama Would Veto Resolution to Stop EPA GHG Regs

The White House has signaled that President Obama would veto a resolution preventing EPA from regulating GHGs should it reach his desk. The measure was expected to come up for a vote in the Senate on Thursday, the Green Inc. blog reported in the New York Times. A Statement of Administration Policy released by the White House said the resolution put forward by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, would undermine the Clean Air Act and prevent EPA from following through on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that the agency had to decide whether CO2 and other GHGs were a threat to human health and the environment.

Murkowski and the 40 co-sponsors of the resolution have argued that Congress, not EPA, should determine energy and environment policy for the nation. Wrote John M. Broder in the Green Inc. blog: "As of Tuesday, Ms. Murkowski appeared short of the 51 votes needed to pass the resolution. Even if it were to get through the Senate, it is unlikely to pass in the House."

- Related story also appeared in the Washington Post.

National Journal 'Experts' Mull Climate Policy, IPCC Snafus

In its Energy and Environment blog, National Journal published thoughts on the issue of Senate Democrats possibly pressuring EPA to delay GHG regulations to allow more time for Congress to act. Jonathan Adler, a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, suggested Congress rewrite the Clean Air Act and establish a more workable policy for restricting GHGs. American Iron and Steel Institute President and CEO Thomas Gibson said EPA regulation would "exacerbate the competitiveness problems facing energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries by increasing their costs while their overseas competitors continue to avoid regulation. Only a comprehensive legislative approach to climate change can address the important international competitiveness and carbon-leakage issues."

Bill Snape, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, said EPA should act quickly because "federal agencies already possess the tools under the Clean Air Act and other statutes to begin addressing the problem. There is no reason to wait. If Congress wants to add some progressive mechanisms ... into the mix, then so be it. But the federal and state agencies with legal authority must make their move, transparently and objectively, without delay" because the atmosphere continues to warm.

Two blog entries differed significantly on admitted errors in reports by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Andrew Wheeler, senior VP of energy and climate-change practice at B&D Consulting, said the IPCC "has blurred the lines between science and advocacy to the point where it is unable to separate situational awareness from proposed remedies." Pew Center on Global Climate Change President Eileen Claussen said the IPCC needed to clean house, but "none of what we have recently heard or read changes the basic scientific consensus that human activities have increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."