Murkowski Seeks to Thwart EPA Emission Regulations (Again)

Photo courtesy of Murkowski's Senate website.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The Environmental Protection Agency signaled last month that it intends to move forward on regulating greenhouse gas emissions, in the absence of a new law governing the planet-warming gases. But if Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski gets her way, the EPA won’t get very far.

The ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee wants to tack an amendment onto unrelated legislation dealing with the statutory limit on the public debt that would curb the EPA’s ability to regulate emissions. The move comes after the agency last month finalized their finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health, a necessary first step to moving forward on regulations.

Murkowski has been among the most active opponents of EPA regulation of greenhouse gases of late, despite stating repeatedly that she does want to see action taken to cut emissions. “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 last month. “EPA regulation must be taken off the table so that we can focus on more responsible approaches to dealing with global climate change.”

Murkowski’s measure is expected to go up for a formal vote on Jan. 20. Murkowski made a similar move last September, but was not successful. That particular measure was to have been added to an appropriations bill, and would have called for a year-long “time out” on EPA action regulating stationary sources of emissions, like power plants, manufacturers, and refineries. It would have blocked work on regulations at the agency by prohibiting the use of any agency funds for that purpose, though the EPA would have been allowed to move forward on regulations of emissions from automobiles and other mobile sources.

Murkowski’s spokesperson said yesterday that there has not yet been a decision on whether to offer the same amendment, or something similar. At this point, all her office can say is that it will deal in some way with EPA regulation of emissions.

While the exact language for the amendment is not nailed down, it is clear that Murkowski intends to block the EPA from following through on both the Supreme Court directive issued in 2007 and the long-standing Clean Air Act. The court ruled in the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA that the agency could regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, if they are found to be a hazard to human health—and that it has an obligation to under the law if it reaches that conclusion. The Bush administration chose to ignore that directive for two years, but the Obama EPA moved forward with an initial finding last April and, following the obligatory comment period and review, then finalized it last month.

Once an emission is found to be a hazard to human health and welfare, the Clean Air Act mandates that the EPA “shall” begin regulating the sources of that pollutant. That’s not “could” or “may”—that’s a requirement, by law. To refrain from doing so would violate the law, which was both passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. But Murkowski is attempting to paint EPA regulation as some sort of weaselly back-door measure invented by the Obama administration and an attempt to subvert congressional action.

“The EPA has taken these actions despite the fact that Congress is continuing to work on climate legislation. I find that highly counter-productive, especially as our nation struggles to regain its economic footing,” Murkowski said. “Make no mistake—Congress is being threatened in a misguided attempt to move a climate bill forward.” (Which, of course, ignores the fact that legislators haven’t actually managed to regulate planet warming emissions on their own yet.)

While it’s unlikely that Murkowski’s most recent attempt to stop the EPA will yield the 60 votes needed for approval, just how many votes it does get will be important. As one industry lobbyist noted yesterday, some see it as a test vote on where the Senate stands on climate legislation. If it gets 40 or more votes, it might indicate a low level of enthusiasm for regulating carbon anytime soon—either via Congress or via EPA. How key fence-sitting Democrats and Republicans vote will also be followed very closely by all key players in the climate debate. The moderate Democrats who have been less than enthusiastic about voting on climate legislation (see: Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu) would be of particular interest.

At the same time, there are a number of senators, Murkowski included, who are decidedly against EPA regulation but could possibly support a new bill that would cut emissions. So just how important the vote on this amendment will be isn’t yet clear.

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate