Energy state senators prepare for face off with EPA

By Andrew Schenkel, Cowboy State Free Press Washington correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republicans and at least one Democratic senator are preparing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gasses.

On Tuesday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, announced she is moving forward with a Resolution of Disapproval that would negate a December ruling by the EPA.

That ruling, known as the “endangerment finding,” found that six greenhouse gasses, including carbon dioxide, were a health risk and could be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Regulations regarding carbon-dioxide emissions are expected to take effect in 2011. But, Murkowski is playing one of the few cards left to block these regulations: The Congressional Review Act of 1996. Under this law, Congress can essentially veto rules and regulations put in place by a federal agency.

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., is one of 40 co-sponsors of Murkowski’s Resolution of Disapproval.

In a statement Tuesday, Enzi said, “This is truly an overreach. In a big city people are breathing out carbon dioxide all day long. Could they be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act? Could breathing become a violation? What about cattle feed lots? Cattle produce carbon dioxide and methane.”

Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller from coal-producing West Virginia is expected to support the Murkowski resolution on a vote scheduled for Thursday.

“I intend to vote for Sen. Murkowski’s Resolution of Disapproval because I believe we must send a strong message that the fate of West Virginia’s economy, our manufacturing industries, and our workers should not be solely in the hands of EPA,” Rockefeller said in a statement Tuesday.

Like West Virginia, Wyoming is a fossil-fuel producing state.

Wyoming is the nation’s leading producer of coal and the nation’s seventh leading producer of oil. While much of Wyoming’s coal is burned for energy out of state, only 17 states that produce fewer carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, according to EPA records.

Like Rockefeller and Murkowski, Enzi focuses on potential economic impacts of the EPA’s regulatory agenda.

“The Clean Air Act was not intended to regulate carbon dioxide, yet the EPA and others in the administration have twisted its intent in order to hamstring our economy under the guise of saving the planet. It should not work that way, and we have the opportunity to protect American jobs by supporting Sen. Murkowski’s resolution of disapproval,” said Enzi.

Other Democrats who may join Enzi, Murkowski and Rockefeller are Sens. Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad of energy-producing North Dakota, Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.

These Democrats are co-sponsors of a separate bill proposed by Rockefeller that would call for a two-year moratorium on the EPA’s regulation to review the process.

But Rockefeller’s bill differs from the Murkowski resolution because Murkowski’s only requires a simple majority vote to pass. Rockefeller’s proposal would require 60 votes to avoid a filibuster.

The Senate is expected to debate and vote on the Murkowski resolution Thursday.

The vote is expected to be close, but it is unclear if any other Democrats will support the measure.  On Tuesday both Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, both D-Mich., said they would oppose the measure, citing they would not break with the scientific findings that justify the EPA’s regulation carbon emissions.

Yet, if five or six Democrats, in addition to the Rockefeller co-sponsors do swing to support the Murkowski resolution, the game of climate poker would still be far from over.

President Barack Obama still holds his presidential veto card, which he could use to overturn of the Murkowski resolution.

Getting enough support to overturn a presidential veto would be a tall task considering the difficulties Rockefeller is finding to get support for his bill.