EPA Considers Dropping Alaska from Controversial Power Plant Regulations

WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency is considering excusing Alaska from its climate change regulation of power plants, the agency chief told Sen. Lisa Murkowski Wednesday.

Murkowski, a Republican, pressed EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on the climate rule and several upcoming regulations from her post as chairman of a Senate appropriations subcommittee, where McCarthy testified.

The EPA released a draft rule last summer that required states to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in an effort to reduce one of the main greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. After reviewing millions of public comments, the agency plans to issue a final regulation by mid-summer.

The draft rule would require Alaska to cut its power plant carbon dioxide emissions 26 percent from 2012 levels by 2030 -- a cut Murkowski said is too steep given the state’s circumstances.
There is no electrical grid connecting Alaska with the Lower 48 and costs of cutting carbon could run high, according to the Alaska Power Association and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.

The rule applies to five power plants in the state, largely clustered in the Anchorage area and the Railbelt. Four are powered by natural gas and one by high-carbon coal. “So when you’re talking about how we’re going to get to that 26 percent reduction, there’s not a lot of give,” Murkowski said.

McCarthy acknowledged that “we find ourselves often talking about the uniqueness of Alaska. This is another instance in which that is again the case.”

Do They WANT Us to Secede ...

Or just leave?

I don't know if you've seen the ads which are running up here, accusing Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) of trying to gut the Clean Air Act. It's disgusting what they say about her, and I'm fed up with it.

Her press release says,

"Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and 40 of her colleagues have introduced a bipartisan disapproval resolution that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing damaging climate regulations. Senator Murkowski chose to sponsor this resolution because she believes this debate belongs in Congress, and allowing the EPA to finalize its regulations would endanger America’s economy – as well as jobs and competitiveness – at a time our nation can least afford it."

From Senator Murkowski's talking points:

"If the EPA is allowed to proceed with its greenhouse gas regulations, the consequences for Alaska will be severe. Hundreds of facilities will be subject to much greater regulation from the EPA, including large hotels, hospitals, fish processors, mines, and other energy-intensive businesses."

Folks, that's what industry looks like, up here. That's what we have.

Some extremist environmental groups are making wild and irresponsible claims about her, for her efforts to safeguard our economy against the EPA's out-of-control proposals. They've accused Sen. Murkowski of trying to gut the Clean Air Act and implied that she wants to give cigarettes to babies. Seriously.

Greenpeace is now running a new Internet ad made to look like an online dating service, pairing lawmakers with lobbyists. The ad shows someone who is supposed to look like Senator Murkowski having a romantic relationship with a lobbyist for cash.

Aside from the obviously sexist aspect (you think they'll run such an ad against Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK?), it's an insult to Sen. Murkowski and her family, and goes way over the line of common decency.

I'm told the local lefty blogs have apparently picked up the theme. I don't understand why none of them care what EPA's proposed regulation of greenhouse gases would do to Alaska's economy. Please note that neither Greenpeace or any of the other environmental groups that support EPA regulation have challenged the Senator on the merits of her argument. It seems they simply don't care what the economic damage will be.

Robert Dillon, Communications Director for Senator Murkowski, has said:

"This type of personal attack is highly offensive and clearly crosses the line. This is a perfect example of what's wrong with Washington. Too often Outside groups go for the personal attack when they can't win on the merits. Rather than have a legitimate debate about the policy, they launch a smear campaign. A couple weeks ago it was babies smoking cigarettes; now it's insults to the senator and her family ­ as if these people have no bounds, no sense of truth, and no interest in meaningful climate policy. Greenpeace should be downright ashamed to be associated with, let alone paying for, these ads."

Now note that I don't normally get involved in politicians' personal issues, but rather political ideas. However, their treatment of the Senator disgusts me. If you have a beef with her science, then use science to refute her arguments. Insult her and the other Senators who oppose you, and you've just lowered your side to the gutter.

It seems the enviro-weenies like it there.