From NY Times/ClimateWire:

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)… ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, may introduce an amendment (pdf) to the fiscal 2010 Interior and environment appropriations bill that would allow EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions only from mobile sources, and prohibit the agency from regulating heat-trapping emissions from stationary sources like power plants and industrial facilities.

The same source reports that the Senate began debate on the bill – which includes appropriations for the Interior Department, the EPA, and the Forrest Service – yesterday, and is scheduled to resume consideration on Monday.   A spokesman said Sen. Murkowski plans to file the amendment.

Of course Sen. Murkowski knows that the EPA is currently in the process of finalizing its so-called “endangerment finding” for greenhouse gases, the formal report that was mandated by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), and which will allow the Agency to regulate CO₂ and other global warming gases under the Clean Air Act.  Though Massachusetts v. EPA was technically a case about mobile sources of emissions (e.g. vehicles), the endangerment finding, once finalized, would pave the way for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from all sources subject to the Clean Air Act –  including stationary sources (e.g. power plants).

That, apparently, has Sen. Murkowski worried.  Her spokesman stated that while she wishes to respect the Supreme Court’s decision regarding mobile sources, she would “request a one-year timeout on money that would be spent on regulation of nonmobile sources,” ostensibly while Congress prepares climate legislation.  (Clean Air Watch president Frank O’Donnell appropriately called this “an outrageous assault on EPA’s ability to interpret the Supreme Court decision,” according to the NYT/ClimateWire article.)

Despite taking significant steps toward regulating CO₂ under the Clean Air Act, the Obama Administration has made very clear that that it thinks Americans would be better served by a comprehensive, flexible climate bill designed by Congress to address global warming gases.  As we’ve argued, however, the EPA’s ability to regulate CO₂ on its own is critical, both as a prod to encourage Congress to formulate meaningful climate legislation quickly and a fallback level of protection until such legislation actually passes.

It is therefore unsurprising that representatives in Congress who are interested in protecting the interests of industry would try to tie EPAs hands for as long as possible.  Though we certainly hope this amendment, if filed, fails, we have a feeling this isn’t the last of such efforts we’ll see.