Sen. Lieberman Gives Climate Bill Minimal Chance in 2010

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said there was a minimal chance for cap-and-trade climate change legislation to move in the Senate in the rest of 2010, E&E News PM reported. Although Lieberman said "there's certainly long-term life" for the proposal, "for the short term, it's standing in place." He noted the possibility of having it "come back in some form during the lame-duck session," but acknowledged that the legislation would still require a 60-vote majority to clear a filibuster.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., predicted the Republican Party would "make significant gains" in the November election, and he indicated that its members would resist any attempt to pass a climate bill before the new Congress. Looking ahead to that Congress, Lieberman predicted that industry "may well be so upset by EPA regulation [of GHG emissions] that they'll come to Congress regardless of the party allocation in Congress and really plead for a legislative response that is more balanced and longer term so they have predictability in what they do."

Roll Call Op-Ed Says Legislation Preferable to EPA Regs to Cut GHGs

In a commentary published by Roll Call, Peter Fox-Penner and Richard Schmalensee considered two pathways toward reducing GHG emissions: Legislation or EPA regulation. Former DOE official Fox-Penner heads the Brattle Group and is author of "Smart Power: Climate Change, the Smart Grid, and the Future of Electric Utilities." Schmalensee is a professor of economics and management at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and directs the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.

Should the regulatory way win out, they wrote, "new, efficient plants are disadvantaged relative to old, inefficient plants, and the latter are thus encouraged to stay in operation as long as possible, continuing to emit greenhouse gases for free while new sources must pay to clean them up." Under EPA standards based on the best available control technology, they explained, there would be "no incentive for continued research and development or investments in technologies to beat the standard." And, since existing sources of emissions would remain in operation, GHGs would not be reduced significantly.

Climate legislation, they argued, would "represent an enormous improvement" over the EPA's way, which would omit using "markets to seek out the cheapest solutions, stimulate innovation, and reward efficiency." Though the several climate bills at play in the Senate would not solve all GHG-related problems, "they are steps in the right direction. It would indeed be regrettable if Members of Congress, who universally prefer carbon markets over command-and-control regulation, could not enact a bill that spares us such regulation and begins to solve the climate problem."

Senate Rejects Sen. Murkowski Resolution by 47-53 Margin

The Senate resolution to block EPA from developing GHG emissions limits failed by a 47-53 Senate vote, the New York Times reported. The resolution, sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, had support from all 41 Republicans, as well as six Democrats.

Sens. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., and Joseph I. Lieberman, ID-Conn., stated that "the Senate made the right decision today but the big question" was will senators act on climate change. They expressed hopes that senators who said Congress and not the EPA should address climate change "will now engage with us." The six Democrats who crossed over were Evan Bayh of Indiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.

Bloomberg reported that Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said the vote indicated the Senate will take up a bill "much different" from the House cap-and-trade bill with a focus on "energy and clean-energy jobs." Kevin Book, an energy analyst at ClearView Energy Partners, said the vote indicated the potential for Republicans and Democrats from coal states to advance a "pro-drilling, pro-safety compromise" energy bill that included "even greater provisions on behalf of their constituents."

President Obama stated: "Today's vote is yet another reminder of the urgent need to pass legislation that would help America transition to a 21st century clean energy economy that would create jobs, strengthen our national security, and protect our environment for our children."

EPA Analysis of Kerry-Lieberman Bill Expected Monday

EPA plans to issue its economic modeling analysis of the Kerry-Lieberman climate change bill on Monday, E&E News PM reported. Agency spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said the shift from the originally planned release on Wednesday resulted from a final review of the analysis not being completed until this weekend. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, ID-Conn., said the analysis will be "a very big moment in the Senate's consideration of energy and climate legislation."

Lieberman called the announcement "the most comprehensive, credible analysis of energy-climate legislation that's yet been done." He also expressed hopes that the study will show that the bill "will create millions of good new jobs." The Energy Information Administration was expected to issue its own analysis of the bill within several weeks.

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.

EPA to Release Climate, Energy Bill Economic Modeling June 10

EPA is expected on June 10 to publicly release its economic modeling results on comprehensive energy and climate legislation, Greenwire reported. Republicans, said Greenwire, were expected to challenge the assumptions EPA used in the analysis of projected household costs and consumption rates resulting from cutting U.S. GHG emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

Citing other studies on the proposed legislation, authors Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joseph Lieberman, ID-Conn., were quoted as saying: "Several nonpartisan studies and economic analyses have now concluded that the American Power Act achieves the goals we set: to strengthen energy security and address climate change. Our approach creates jobs, protects consumers and reduces our oil dependence."

Also on June 10, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., plans to hold a climate legislation strategy meeting with key committee chairmen, and the Senate is scheduled to vote on a resolution offered by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, intended to prevent EPA from writing emissions rules for cars and industrial facilities.

Vote on Sen. Murkowski's EPA Resolution Scheduled for June 10

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said the Senate will hold a vote on June 10 on her disapproval resolution to block EPA's endangerment finding for GHG emissions, Environment and Energy Daily reported. The schedule was included in her unanimous consent agreement with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Murkowski cautioned that "until it's typed down in language, nothing is locked in solid," but she added that Democrats "agreed that let's just agree to a unanimous consent" for the resolution.

The Senate was expected to debate the measure for 10 hours, with no filibusters or amendments permitted. It will require 51 votes for approval and had 41 co-sponsors thus far. Murkowski said her tally of supporters was "top secret." She added: "My job is just to work hard, make sure people understand the implications of this measure and what it will mean for our nation's economy, and we'll go forward with the vote after the recess."

Sen. Graham Expects Senate to Block Endangerment Finding

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., predicted the Senate will approve the resolution sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, to block EPA's endangerment finding for GHG emissions, Environment and Energy Daily reported. Graham, who was one of 41 cosponsors of the resolution, said "the majority of the body will say that Congress should set the carbon regulations, not the EPA."

Graham added that he believed emissions limits needed "a more business-friendly framework than Waxman-Markey," including measures to promote "energy independence" for the U.S. He stated that one of his conditions for voting for the Kerry-Lieberman bill was for it to include provisions allowing offshore energy production along the Florida Gulf coast.

In response, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., was quoted as saying: "I can't keep up with his various conditions." Graham predicted the climate bill will "either going to get 40 votes or probably 70 votes" from senators. Graham was quoted as saying of the bill's fate: "Every week that goes by, if people don't sign up, that's a bad thing. If people show an interest, that's a good thing. The political market will tell us after the modeling is done."

Energy Information Administration Analyzing Senate Climate Bill

The Energy Information Administration has received a detailed enough version of the climate-change legislation Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., were working on to begin its analysis of the bill, Reuters reported. EIA spokesman Jonathan Cogan was quoted as saying: "We received details. It's not a copy of legislation, but it was specific enough to allow us to go forward with our modeling efforts."

Kerry said the bill was released to agencies for analysis despite the delay in its official release caused by Graham's withdrawal from final negotiations last weekend. Kerry's move could help speed up lawmakers' work on the legislation when it finally reaches the Senate floor, possibly in July, said Reuters. The Congressional Budget Office is expected to analyze the bill also.

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, has called for an ongoing analysis of the anticipated costs of the Senate climate and energy legislation, E&E News PM reported. Voinovich said in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "Modeling of similarly styled proposals shows us that the policy options that may be employed to regulate various sectors of the economy are sufficiently intertwined that even small changes to the bill can have significant effects on other regulated sectors and the cumulative economic impacts."

EPA and the Energy Information Administration estimated their work would take up to eight weeks unless the Senate asked for additional modeling to analyze changes in the legislation. Voinovich asked that EPA and EIA also analyze the cumulative impacts from state and regional GHG programs as well as from federal statutes that would not be pre-empted by the legislation and for an analysis of the cost of implementing federal climate policy using existing laws. Supporters of Voinovich's requests include Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Susan Collins, R-Maine.

EPA Angling to Set Up Cap-and-Trade, Official Tells ABA Event

Anna Marie Wood, a senior policy analyst at the EPA, said at an American Bar Association event that the agency may set up a cap-and-trade system relying on the Clean Air Act, Bloomberg reported. Wood was quoted as saying: "We're considering all that right now and thinking about what might make sense [because] we think that there's a lot of progress that can be made using certain tools under the Clean Air Act."

Allan Bedwell, a VP at Cantor CO2e, the emission markets unit for Cantor Fitzgerald LP, said the Obama administration's budget request showed the EPA's interest in carbon trading under existing law and there are "continuing signals from the agency that they're looking at this and evaluating this internally."

Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asked EPA to reconsider regulating CO2, The Hill reported. In a statement, the chamber said: "The EPA has admitted that such an unprecedented regulatory expansion would 'paralyze' and 'overwhelm' permitting authorities, leaving businesses waiting months or even years to get the permits they need to keep operating. This admission by the EPA undermines the basis for the endangerment finding, and justifies reopening the process."

- Related stories also appeared in The Detroit News and LegalNewsline.com.

Investor's Business Daily Flails at EPA, Efforts to Regulate CO2

Investor's Business Daily, in an editorial published today, criticized the New York Times for suggesting in its editorial that if Congress doesn't act to reduce CO2, then EPA should do it instead. The newspaper asked: "Whatever happened to government of the people? It's been a pattern of this administration that if the American people are adamantly opposed to it, ram it through anyway. So it's been with the health care overhaul, offshore drilling restrictions and now the [EPA] threatening to become the uber-regulator of the air we breathe."

Calling the Times the "paper of distorted record," the newspaper noted the Times' opposition to the "resolution of disapproval" of the EPA threat suggested by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who represents an energy-rich state. "Lawmakers said Congress--not the EPA--should address an issue with big implications for thousands of U.S. jobs and businesses. We concur."

Predicting that "economic collapse" would follow EPA regulations on CO2 and "give the world's largest polluter, China, a competitive edge, the newspaper wrote: "The Times and the EPA would have us lead by example--right off an economic cliff. We believe in the consent of the governed. On this issue, the governed no longer consent."

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."

Charleston Editorial Compares EPA Plan to Colonial Policies

The Charleston Daily Mail, in an editorial, applauded the 20 governors who told Congress in a letter that in preparing to regulate CO2, EPA had failed to consider the potential impact on the U.S. economy. The Daily Mail quoted the letter as saying that EPA was "not equipped to consider the very real potential for economic harm when regulating emissions. Without that consideration, regulation will place heavy administrative burdens on state environmental quality agencies, will be costly to consumers and could be devastating to the economy and jobs."

The editorial compared the impending EPA action with policies of Britain before the American Revolution: "The idea that a small group of federal bureaucrats in the nation's capital can--without any input from the representatives of the public--make such huge decisions so cavalierly is exactly why the 13 colonies rebelled some 235 years ago. The slogan then was no taxation without representation. Today, the cry should be no regulation without representation. The governors speak for their people's interests and from their experiences in the real world. Congressmen need to stand up as well, or constituents will find new people who do."

Governors Urge Congressional Leaders to Stop EPA's GHG Regs

Twenty governors, including Republican Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Democrat Gov. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, sent a letter to House and Senate leaders urging them to stop the Obama administration from regulating GHG emissions, Bloomberg reported. The letter said EPA was "not equipped to consider the very real potential for economic harm when regulating emissions."

The letter went on to say Congress should "pass comprehensive legislation that balances the role of conservation and climate security with the production of abundant and affordable American energy." The letter was signed by 18 Republican governors and two Democratic governors. A spokesman for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was quoted as saying that the agency was proposing "common sense" measures and that "EPA rejects the premise that addressing greenhouse gases threatens the economy."