U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski failed in her bid in June to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon emissions.

The economy may end up doing the job for her.

In her first visit to Alaska, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Monday that regulating carbon emissions from stationary sources such as refineries, factories and power plants is "something the economy cannot deal with right away."

Climate change legislation in the Senate has been stalled until at least the fall on concerns about rising electric rates caused by capping carbon emissions from utility companies, and Jackson said she's heard the same economic worries.

"My commitment has been from the beginning we would take a common sense, stepwise approach to regulation with absolute clarity to where we're going, taking public comment all along the way," Jackson said. "This isn't an EPA that's looking to be in anyway punitive or the heavy hand of government. But we do believe that we have a legal and moral obligation toward lowering carbon emissions in our economy."

On the eve of the June 10 Senate vote on Murkowski's resolution, which failed 47-53, Jackson wrote an op-ed for The Huffington Post in which she said the resolution was backed by "strong support from big oil companies and their lobbyists" and that it "would ignore and override scientific findings and allow big oil companies, big refineries and others to continue to pollute without any oversight or consequence."

Murkowski said at the time that she introduced the resolution stopping the EPA from regulating carbon because the Democratic leadership would not allow a vote on her earlier proposal to stop the EPA from regulating stationary sources for one year while allowing its mobile source regulation of vehicles to continue.

Jackson touted those new vehicle fuel standards while in Anchorage, and addressed the political criticism she's faced from Alaska's local and federal representatives in the last 18 months.

"We certainly realize EPA's actions can have an impact on our country's economy and well being, generally for the better," she said. "Any individual issue may mean we need to have discussion."

Under Jackson, the EPA has directly affected business in Alaska. The agency has pulled Shell's air permits in conjunction with the Gulf of Mexico drilling moratorium (potentially delaying its Arctic drilling beyond 2011), began requiring marine transport vessels and cruise ships use low-sulfur diesel while 200 miles off the coasts of Alaska and Canada, and is now considering a requirement for small aircraft to switch to unleaded fuel.

A proposed switch to "avgas" would affect more than 10,000 planes serving rural Alaska that currently use leaded fuel because it's safer for piston-fired engines.

"I think it is absolutely crucial that Alaskans know that EPA takes very seriously its job to protect human health and the environment -- here as well -- and to balance and to listen, and to do that in conjunction with state and local officials, to do that in conjunction with Native villages," Jackson said. "But also to speak clearly and authoritatively based on science to do what we think is necessary to protect human health and the environment. It's never been more important than now that EPA do that."

On her three-day tour of Alaska, Jackson visited with state agencies, industry representatives such as the Resource Development Council and Alaska Native communities. She also had planned to meet with Pebble Limited Partnership representatives July 28 before flying to Dillingham to meet with stakeholders at the site of the controversial mining project.

The proposed Pebble mine is a vast deposit of copper, gold and molybdenum located near Bristol Bay and the world's largest salmon run.

"There's nothing like seeing it for yourself," Jackson said. "This is an issue that's already on the radar screens of many, not just in Alaska, so I'm curious to see that as well."
Jackson said she was "eager" to meet people, including her critics.

"I think it is easier to criticize EPA in the abstract, but when we sit down at a table, it's very rare I meet a business leader or an environmental leader who doesn't agree on the importance of conserving our natural heritage and having clean air and clean water for our children and grandchildren," she said. "We start there and we know full well we can go from pitched battles to wonderful cooperation on a range issue. But the relationships and communication are how government should work."

On the issue of the proposed rule on unleaded fuel for small aircraft, Jackson said she "hadn't heard anything" and deferred to EPA Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLerran, who said the staff working on the rules change is "very aware of Alaska issues."

On the requirement for ships to use low sulfur fuel within 200 miles of shore, Jackson said EPA did extensive scientific research and picked the largest possible emissions control area based on models of human health impacts as far inland as Kansas from West Coast shipping operations.

Jackson said the 200-mile zone was also a form of global leadership at the International Maritime Organization, where the U.S. and Canada jointly proposed the limit for the two nations' coastlines.

"We believe (in the emission control area) very strongly, not only for reason of protecting human health when air quality is a concern through parts of our country, but also because of international leadership," she said. "We knew we were going to go to the International Maritime Organization and show that we believe that we have the scientific data to show the rest of the world that if we set the standard, they need to come along."

Shipping companies argue the new standards will raise freight costs by increasing their fuel expenses by 25 percent in 2012 and doubling by 2015. Because of those costs, Congress granted waivers to more than two dozen steam and diesel ships in the Great Lakes region. Jackson said economic concerns and political clout won out on the Great Lakes deal struck to secure an appropriation bill funding the EPA.

"A lot of those steamers are very old," Jackson said. "Eventually they'll move on. But in a tough economy, Congressional leadership from that area felt it was important and eventually we agreed to a limited, very limited, exemption for those classes."

Asked why an economic concern was applicable to the Great Lakes and not to Alaska, which receives 85 percent of its goods by sea, Jackson deferred again to McLerran.

"There are some alternatives available," McLerran said. "EPA has given grants for seawater scrubbers. There is a phase-in time before the regulations take full effect in 2015. We think there are some good alternatives for Alaska shippers to look at it. We've put the EPA's money behind it."

McLerran noted that the trend of reducing emissions from ships near shore actually started in Juneau when the port began requiring cruise ships to use plug-in power rather than burning fuel at the dock.

"It's a shining example," he said.
Andrew Jensen can be reached at andrew.jensen@alaskajournal.com.