The top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee today defended her draft amendment that would limit the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse emissions from stationary sources like power plants and industrial facilities.

In a conference call with reporters, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said the Senate's packed agenda should not compel the government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the EPA in lieu of legislation.

"When you have competing priorities before the Congress, particularly before the Senate right now, this is one where we might not be able to advance it legislatively and the regulatory agency steps in and... acts as a poison pill," Murkowski said. "I don't think that's the direction we should be taking."

The amendment, which would be part of the EPA's fiscal 2010 spending bill, would impose limits for one year. The draft amendment prompted more than 30 environmental groups to send a letter to Murkowski complaining that it would "let Big Oil, dirty coal, and other big polluters off the hook for their carbon dioxide emissions."

Murkowski said the amendment does not mean she wants the issue of climate change legislation "off the table." She said instead that she doesn't want the looming December U.N. climate change talks taking place in Copenhagen to serve as a false deadline to pass legislation. "The notion that we would as a Congress try to ram through legislation, such as climate change legislation, just so we can go to Copenhagen and say that we have taken steps to address climate change, to me is not the correct way to proceed, and yet there are some who are saying we gotta hurry up and do it yesterday because Copenhagen is coming."

While the call largely focused on the draft amendment, Murkowski also touched upon President Obama's speech today at the U.N. climate change summit in New York, which she said "was short on details." She also expressed openness to a carbon tax as an alternative to a cap-and-trade scheme in order to combat climate change.

"A carbon tax is clearly one [option] that is legitimate for discussion," Murkowski said. "Is it my preferred method? Probably not. Is it far more transparent and understandable, as opposed to a cap-and-trade system where for all intents and purposes you're establishing a whole new form of currency? It certainly is more transparent."

More in Energy Go to section

October 04, 2010 | Energy and Environment Bulletin

Is Unpriced Carbon The Next Subprime?

September 02, 2010 | Energy and Environment Bulletin

Dems Seek Answers On Gulf Explosion

September 01, 2010 | Energy and Environment Bulletin

BP Spent Big On Advertising After Spill

August 24, 2010 | Tech Daily Dose

Biden: Stimulus Dollars Fueling Energy and Life-Saving Technology

August 17, 2010 | Insider Interviews

Deepwater Horizon's Enduring Lessons