Sen. Lugar Proposes New Energy Bill With No Cap-and-Trade System

Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, have introduced energy legislation that would promote energy efficiency, provide loan guarantees worth $54 billion for new nuclear construction, devise a national renewable energy standard wherein nuclear generation and CCS would be considered renewables and require setting motor vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, E&E News PM reported. Lugar was quoted as saying: "It is time to recast the debate in Congress and match priorities with a practical alternative."

According to Lugar, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the legislation would cut dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent and reduce emissions by more than 1.6 billion tons, UPI Energy reported, quoting Lugar as saying: "It targets our dangerous oil addiction by maximizing fuel savings in transportation and increasing domestic production of fossil and bio-based fuels."

Energy Secretary Steven Chu praised the Republican bill, called the Practical Energy and Climate Plan Act of 2010, for its emphasis on energy efficiency, but continued to push for a cap-and-trade system, Environment & Energy Daily reported. Chu was quoted as saying: "I continue to believe that to fully capitalize on these opportunities we need comprehensive legislation that puts a price on carbon and makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy."

Graham said Lugar's bill could possibly get 60 votes in the Senate because it did not cap emissions or expand offshore drilling, Bloomberg reported. The Union of Concerned Scientists criticized the proposal because it would "fail to cut global warming emissions to the level scientists say is necessary to avoid the worst of consequences of climate change," while Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, called it "amnesty for big polluters."

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."

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.

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."