But it turns out he’s not the only one seeking the position. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) also announced his interest in the position yesterday.

In a letter to House Democrats, Markey explained his decision. “I do so because I believe the twin issues of energy and the environment will be of paramount importance in the next Congress, and the Natural Resources Committee will be a critical forum in which the national debate over these issue will be played out,” he said.

Markey will likely have his work cut out for him. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) is the leading contender to take over as chairman of the committee. In a statement released last week, Hastings said his priorities include increasing domestic energy production “through an all-of-the-above energy plan” and ensuring that the Obama administration is held “accountable” for its new offshore drilling policies.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), the current chairman of the committee, is seeking the ranking spot on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The current chairman, Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), lost his re-election bid.

In his letter, Markey also acknowledged that the fate of the other committee he chairs, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, is in question. Some Republicans have said they’ll abolish the committee, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) established in 2006.

It was mostly bad news for House Democrats who voted for the chamber’s cap-and-trade bill. The two most stinging defeats were Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who worked furiously behind the scenes to secure benefits for his coal-dependent state in the bill before finally giving his “yes” vote, and Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), who became somewhat of a celebrity on the left for standing by the more liberal wing of his party on a number of key votes, including cap-and-trade. Boucher, from Virginia’s 9th district, lost to his Republican opponent, Morgan Griffith, and Perriello, despite a big last-minute push by environmentalists and President Obama himself, lost to state Sen. Robert Hurt (R).

Politico ran the numbers this morning. At least 12 freshman Democrats who voted for the cap-and-trade bill lost their re-election bids, while at least seven (I noted Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) last night) won, with some races still too close to call. In total, Politico notes, more than 30 Democrats who voted for the House climate bill fell to their Republican opponents last night.

In the West Virginia Senate race, Gov. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, managed to eke out a victory over Republican John Raese. While Democrats can technically put Manchin in their column, he campaigned against nearly every significant Obama administration policy, including cap-and-trade. In one now-infamous ad, he shot the House climate bill with a shotgun.

But there was some good news for environmentalists last night. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, won her reelection bid against Carly Fiorina. Boxer has always been a strong advocate for environmental protections, but her job is likely to get harder in the next Congress. She has already been accused of unwillingness to reach across the aisle, but with more Republicans in the Senate, she’ll have no choice if she wants to pass energy and climate bills.

At the same time, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) survived a tough race against Tea Party darling Sharron Angle. The big question going forward now is what will Reid do on energy and climate legislation next Congress. By now, it’s common knowledge that it will be next to impossible to pass comprehensive climate legislation in the next two years. So it seems Reid will focus on a series of low-hanging-fruit provisions that are popular on both sides of the aisle, including bills to incentivize electric vehicles, improve energy efficiency and weatherize homes.

The fate of two big-ticket items for environmentalists — a renewable energy standard and a much-delayed oil spill response bill — remains unclear. While there’s still time in the lame-duck session to try to pass both provisions, Republicans have more incentive to block the bills until next Congress, as they’ll have more sway later. There is Republican support for an RES, which would require that a certain percentage of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources like wind and solar, but GOP gains in the Senate could make it more likely that Republicans will push to add nuclear power and coal with carbon capture technology to the mix, a nightmare scenario for environmentalists.

It’s even less clear what will happen with the oil spill response bill. More than six months after the massive Gulf oil spill, Congress has yet to pass significant legislation to overhaul offshore drilling (on the regulatory side, the Interior Department has issued its own new drilling rules). A number of contentious issues, like how liable an oil company is for damages from a spill, are sure to take on new significance now that more Republicans are in the Senate.

In other key midterm results, Proposition 23, a California ballot initiative that would suspend the state’s landmark climate change law, failed. It’s a huge win for environmentalists, who funneled millions of dollars into the “No on Prop 23″ campaign, pitting themselves against two Texas oil refiners that campaigned heavily for passage of the initiative. California’s climate law is viewed by environmentalists as the gold standard. Passage of the ballot initiative would have been the icing on the cake of a disappointing year for climate activists.

At the same time, it looks like another California ballot initiative, Proposition 26, will pass. The measure would require a two-thirds majority vote in the state legislature and in local government bodies to impose new fees on industry. Environmentalists say the proposition will make it more difficult to implement key environmental rules, including parts of the state’s climate law. In the last days of midterm election campaigning, as it became clear that Prop 23 would fail, activists’ attention shifted to Prop 26. But it was apparently too late to make a significant difference at the polls.

It’s also worth noting that the powerful House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) was defeated last night. Obsertar worked for years to reform pipeline safety and was in the process of developing new legislation to do so in the aftermath of a massive oil pipeline spill in Michigan and a natural gas pipeline explosion in California.

Two other key Senate races remain too close to call this morning. In the Colorado Senate race, Sen. Michael Bennet (D) and Republican Ken Buck are still neck and neck. As I noted yesterday in my midterm preview, the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club have trashed Buck in ads, highlighting his comments questioning whether climate change is man-made. Environmentalists have made Buck the poster child of Republican climate skeptics running this cycle. For his part, Buck’s spokesman said his official position is this: “Ken believes climate change is occurring, but that it’s natural more than man-made.”

Bennet does not support the House version of cap-and-trade, but his campaign said recently that he would support a “well-thought-out, market-based bill.” Buck’s campaign jumped on the comments, saying Bennet’s position on the issue is unclear.

Don’t hold your breath for results of the Alaska Senate race between incumbent and write-in candidate Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R), Tea Party favorite Joe Miller (R) and Democrat Scott McAdams. Murkowski appears to be winning, according to early results. Murkowski is the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Though she has opposed cap-and-trade bills in the past, she has a history of working closely with Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), the panel’s chairman, on key energy bills, including the comprehensive energy bill they passed in 2009.

Senate:

Alaska: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is facing off against Republican Joe Miller, a Tea Party favorite, and Democrat Scott McAdams. The Associated Press reports that all the candidates engaged yesterday in a last-minute push to gain votes. Even Bill Clinton got in on the action, doing a robocall for McAdams. This race is hugely important on the energy front because Murkowski is the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Despite her opposition to recent cap-and-trade proposals, she has worked closely over the years with committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), most notably on their comprehensive energy bill, which received bipartisan support in committee, but never made it to a floor vote (much to Bingaman and Murkowski’s chagrin). If Murkowski loses, Alaska loses a senator with seniority on energy issues, and that’s exactly the message Murkowski has been sending in campaign speeches.

California: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is in a tight race with her Republican opponent Carly Fiorina. Boxer is the head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and has been a key player in drafting climate change legislation (remember the Kerry-Boxer bill?). But amid accusations that she is too partisan, Boxer played a largely behind-the-scenes role in the most recent Senate run at climate change legislation. Instead, a bipartisan trio of lawmakers — Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and, for a while a least, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — took the lead. Fiorina, for her part, has raised questions about climate science.

Colorado: This race is mostly important because of the extent to which environmentalists don’t want Sen. Michael Bennet’s (D-Colo.) opponent, Ken Buck, to win. The League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club have trashed Buck in ads, highlighting his comments questioning whether climate change is man-made. Environmentalists have made Buck the poster child of Republican climate skeptics running this cycle. For his part, Buck’s spokesman said his official position is this: “Ken believes climate change is occurring, but that it’s natural more than man-made.” Bennet, for his part, has said he does not support the House version of cap-and-trade, but his campaign said recently that he would support a “well-thought-out, market-based bill.” Buck’s campaign jumped on the comments, saying Bennet’s position on the issue is unclear.

Nevada: Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) re-election bid has to make pretty much every one of these lists because, well, he’s the Senate majority leader. His opponent, Tea Party darling Sharron Angle, is slightly ahead in polls. While Reid has faced some criticism from environmentalists, often not in public, for being too hesitant to move forward on climate and energy legislation, most fear the implications of a loss by Reid. Though prospects for a comprehensive climate bill are next to non-existent in the next two years, environmentalists are hoping to pass a number of energy/environment bills next year, including proposals to incentivize electric vehicles, weatherize homes, respond to the oil spill and require that a certain portion of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources like wind and solar.

House:

VA-5: Freshman Rep. Tom Perriello is in a tight race against state Sen. Robert Hurt (R). The Perriello race is seen by many Republicans as a referendum on President Obama’s policies. Perriello, from a conservative Southern Virginia district, voted for both cap-and-trade and the health care bill and has been taking flack at home for it. In an attempt to come to Perriello’s rescue, environmentalists have run ads criticizing Hurt as a friend of big oil. Even President Obama got in on the action, campaigning for Perriello late last week.

MN-8: Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is in a nail biter against his Republican challenger, Chip Cravaack. The latest polls show the race incredibly tight. Oberstar, as head of the transportation panel, is one of the key lawmakers charged with reviewing pipeline safety in the aftermath of a massive oil pipeline spill in Michigan and a natural gas pipeline explosion in California.

Proposition 23:

While the latest polling says that Prop 23, which would essentially overturn California’s landmark climate change law, will fail, it’s still on our radar.

Proposition 26:

The lesser-known California ballot initiative, Prop 26 would require a two-thirds majority vote for the state legislature to impose any new fee on industry. If it passes, it could also impact the state’s climate law because it would make it difficult to enforce through the legislature, the Los Angeles Times notes.

A natural gas pipeline exploded in San Bruno, Calif., Sept. 9. (Flickr, Thomas Hawk)

Once PG&E discovered that a natural gas pipeline had exploded in San Bruno, Calif., earlier this month, employees from the utility company had to drive in rush-hour traffic to manually turn off two separate safety valves in order to stop the flow of gas that was fueling the blaze. It took the employees more than an hour to reach the valves and shut them off.

[Environment1] Lawmakers and pipeline safety advocates said today at a hearing of a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee that this is unacceptable. Utilities that operate pipelines in so-called high consequence areas — or areas near dense populations — should be required to install remote or automatic shutoff valves that will immediately stop the flow of gas in the event of an emergency.

This is not a new idea. Rick Kessler — vice president of the Pipeline Safety Trust, a non-profit group that advocates for pipeline safety — said his group has been calling for federal regulations that require the use of remote shutoff valves for about a decade. And Sen. Frank Lautenber (D-N.J.), chairman of the subsurface transportation subcommittee that held the hearing, has been calling for the valves since a massive 1994 natural gas pipeline explosion in Edison, N.J., killed one person and left 100 people without homes.

The San Bruno explosion killed eight people, injured many more and destroyed dozens of homes. The disaster has refocused attention on the issue of pipeline safety, an issue that was thrust into the spotlight earlier this year when a pipeline break in Michigan spilled 1 million gallons of oil into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River. As The Washington Independent reported in  its series on pipeline safety, regulation, both at the state and federal levels, is severely lacking.

Now, Congress is moving forward to take action. The Obama administration offered its own proposal to reform pipeline oversight (the administration is also developing new leak detection rules), a proposal that Kessler said was woefully inadequate. The administration “put out a proposal that doesn’t address any of the issues raised by San Bruno,” he said, adding that it’s “too little, too late.”

Kessler recommended that any pipeline safety proposal require the installation of remote shutoff valves in high consequence areas, require companies to upgrade pipelines that cannot accommodate the best inspection equipment and mandate a complete review of the federal government’s requirements that the public be made aware of the existence and location of pipelines.

There are two other pipeline safety proposlals on the table in Congress. The first comes from California’s senators — Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D) and Barbara Boxer (D). The proposal is largely based on the Obama administration’s plan, but it would also require the use of remote shutoff valves, mandate advanced inspection technology, and require that the Obama administration write leak detection regulations. Lautenberg, along with full committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.),  introduced their own pipeline safety bill today that requires remote shutoff valves.

Meanwhile, in the House, the Transporation and Infrastructure Committee is in the process of reviewing the administration’s pipeline proposal and developing its own plan. As I’ve reported, it’s unlikely that any of these proposals will pass any time soon, since Congress is focusing on the mid-term elections.

Boxer, noting the potential for the legislation to take some time to move through Congress, pressed California Public Utilities Commission Executive Director Paul Clanon to require PG&E, the owner of the San Bruno pipeline, to begin installing more remote shutoff valves. Clanon said he had asked PG&E to identify the areas that it makes the most sense to install the valves.

PG&E President Christopher Johns, pressed by Boxer on the issue, said, “I will work with the PUC to put them in wherever it makes sense to put in.” Boxer said the valves should be put in all high-consequence areas. There are 3,600 miles of natural gas pipeline in high-consequence areas in California alone.

Installing the new valves across the whole country would be a massive undertaking that would require significant additional resources. As it stands now, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the federal agency in charge of overseeing pipeline safety, is already significantly under-resourced.

PHMSA Administrator Cynthia Quarterman, pressed by Boxer on what the agency is doing to improve pipeline safety in light of the San Bruno disaster, said she is looking into the possibility of requiring more remote shutoff valves, but added that she was waiting to make significant decisions until the National Transportation Safety Board finished its investigation into the explosion.

Boxer said Quarterman should not wait. “It’s on our collective shoulders now. We have been warned,” she said. “I think you need to be proactive on this one and not wait for new information to come out.”

A note on the committee’s website suggests that the hearing will also focus on the recent natural gas pipeline burst in San Bruno, Calif. According to the note:

Members are advised that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) will be able to answer questions at the hearing related to the September 9, 2010 Enbridge release of crude oil on Line 6A in Romeoville, Illinois, and the deadly September 9, 2010 Pacific Gas & Electric natural gas explosion in San Bruno, California, as well as Federal oversight of gas and hazardous liquid pipeline safety.

For a little light reading, here is the 42-page backgrounder on the Michigan spill. And here is a series I wrote on pipeline safety this summer.

Officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Department of Transportation are expected to testify at the hearing.

Mary Kerr, a spokesperson for Obserstar, said there are no hearings scheduled on Enbridge Energy and the Michigan oil spill. But she said the information request is “the first step” in any effort to look at the issue more deeply. The lawmakers gave Enbridge and the agencies until Aug. 13 to provide the requested information.

The committee is currently in the process of reauthorizing PHMSA. The committee has held hearings on the agency, most recently on July 15 when lawmakers looked at its oversight of the methods companies use to ensure pipelines are sound. “That hearing was part of our normal reauthorization process, and not a result of the MI or any other specific spill,” Kerr wrote in an e-mail.

The package passed after hours of floor debate. Republicans argued that the bills are ill conceived, would kill jobs and are too far-reaching.

If signed into law, the package, among other things, would:

• Remove the cap — currently at $75 million — on a company’s liability for economic damages from an oil spill
• Facilitate the restructuring of the now-defunct Minerals Management Service, which was responsible for permitting and licensing offshore oil and gas drilling
• Require that oil companies use new safety technologies meant to avoid blowouts at an oil well
• Provide whistleblower protections for workers who report safety violations on oil rigs

The package includes several more narrow bills offered by Reps. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and James Oberstar (D-Minn.), among others.

Now that the package has passed, attention shifts to the Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is struggling to gain the 60 votes necessary to pass a stripped-down energy bill that includes a number of oil spill response provisions. As in the House, Republicans and some Democrats have opposed a provision in the bill that would remove a cap on oil companies’ liability in the event of a spill. Opponents argue that such a provision will stifle drilling in the Gulf, leading to job losses.

Reid is expected to bring his bill to the floor on Wednesday, though the schedule is very much still in flux.

It remains unclear how the House package will be conferenced with the Senate bill. While the House and Senate packages deal with the oil spill, the House package does not include energy provisions, as that chamber passed a climate and energy bill last year. Reid was not able to secure the votes to include a cap on carbon, even a scaled-down utility-only cap. Neither was he able to secure the votes for a renewable energy mandate.

From Jake Tapper:

In an interview with Congressional Quarterly, Oberstar said that LaHood “had the temerity to think…and what did he get? Slapped down.  He’s a good man.  A decent man. Don’t let him get slapped down by know-nothings.” 

Oberstar then suggested that Gibbs ought to stay out of the conversation on transportation policy.

“I’ve got news for you,” Oberstar said, “transportation policy isn’t going to be written in the press room of the White House.”

Oh, it’s on.

A report released by the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that America’s aging bridges, roads, sewers and other structures will require $2.2 trillion in maintenance and repairs over the next five years just “to meet adequate conditions.” If the country’s infrastructure were to be graded, the ASCE claims, it would get a “D.”

The report is likely to stir the already heated controversy surrounding the Obama administration’s spending choices under the $825 billion proposal, which House lawmakers are expected to approve today. In December, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee recommended $85 billion in new infrastructure spending, including $30 billion for highways and bridges, $12 billion for transit and $14 billion for environmental infrastructure. Supporters of that strategy say it provides the most bang-for-the-buck in terms of creating or sustaining jobs and stimulating the economy quickly.

Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) has been vocal in pointing out that the Obama administration’s blueprint provides just $63.5 billion for those same projects. Reports have emerged that Obama economic advisor Larry Summers was behind the move to trim infrastructure spending in favor of tax cuts, which the administration included to entice GOP support — support that seems not to be forthcoming.

There’s another reason that the tax rebates — which constitute $275 billion of the package — have been controversial: Gifted with a similar tax rebate last year, many Americans simply saved the cash or used it to pay down existing debts — actions that do nothing to stimulate the economy in the short term.

As University of Maryland economist Peter Morici told CNN this morning: “That’s part of the controversy about this bill. A lot of the money may be wasted.”

Indeed, the House Appropriations Committee yesterday tweaked the bill a bit, adding amendments requiring that projects funded by the stimulus use only U.S.-made iron and steel; providing $150 million in new funding for food banks; prohibiting Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) from directing any of the funds; and forcing contractors to pay construction workers no less than prevailing local wages.

That won’t be all.

Today, both the House Ways and Means and the House Energy and Commerce panels are considering the bill. And the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is meeting as well, partly (we’re guessing) to vent frustrations about why the Democrats’ blueprint included $275 billion in tax cuts, but tens of billions less on infrastructure projects than the panel recommended last month. (Read: Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) is none too pleased.)

And this, of course, is all happening without input from Senate lawmakers, who are certain to have their own ideas about what the stimulus should prioritize. Stay tuned for more changes…