Reid said yesterday before the meeting that he was unsure about bringing the proposal up for a vote in the lame-duck session, even though he had promised Rockefeller a vote on the bill before the end of the year. He told reporters yesterday:

It’s real hard just to say, yeah, we can do this, because we have limited time to go through all the procedural motions. But if there’s a way we can do it, I’ll be happy to work with him on that.

But after the meeting, both Rockefeller’s and Reid’s offices were quiet about whether any final decisions were made.

Regan Lachapelle, Reid’s spokeswoman said, “I don’t have a comment from the meeting.” And Rebecca Gale, Rockefeller’s spokeswoman, said simply, “Nothing yet.”

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.”

What is the Clean Air Act, and why does it matter?

The Clean Air Act was passed in 1963 and has been significantly amended over the last several decades, with the last major changes coming in 1990. The law is long and complicated, but its overall goal is to protect human health from pollutants in the air. (For the wonks among us, the Environmental Protection Agency has a copy of the act, with all its various amendments, here.)

The act is significant for its many successes. Remember the hole in the ozone layer that we heard so much about in the ’90s? The act essentially banned the use of chemicals that deplete ozone, and scientists now say that, though it will take decades for the ozone layer to return to normal, its depletion is slowing.

Why can the Obama administration regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the act?

The Clean Air Act wasn’t written with greenhouse gases in mind, but in a 2007 decision, the Supreme Court found that EPA could regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the act’s authority. In fact, if the agency determined these sorts of emissions endangered public health, it would have a legal obligation to regulate them, according to the court’s interpretation of the law.

In its so-called endangerment finding, EPA concluded that greenhouse gas emissions do indeed threaten public health. According to the court’s decision, that finding compelled the agency to regulate the emissions.

Though the White House has stated its preference to deal with climate change in Congress, administration officials have said they will move forward with regulation under the Clean Air Act if lawmakers are unable to pass climate legislation. As I’ve reported countless times here, there is about a zero percent chance that the Senate will pass climate legislation that puts a cap on carbon pollution this year. And, depending on the outcome of the mid-term election, it will be an uphill battle next year too.

Who is threatening the Obama administration’s authority under the act, and why?

EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act is the nightmare scenario for Republicans and many Democrats, who see regulation under the act as much more complicated than passing legislation to address the issue. But Republicans and moderate Democrats clearly did not see the threat of EPA regulation as reason enough to vote for a cap-and-trade bill: they have come to an impasse with their more liberal counterparts on the legislation.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) tried and failed to pass a resolution that would have essentially blocked the administration from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, but the Senate rejected the measure in June. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has also emerged as a major player in the debate, offering his own bill to delay EPA’s action.

Now, on to this week’s developments:

• Early this week, a number of press reports said a Senate Appropriations Committee mark-up of an EPA and Interior Department appropriations bill could give lawmakers an opportunity to block EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. The reports suggested that an amendment blocking or delaying the EPA regulation could pass.
• On Tuesday, the Appropriations Committee canceled the markup of the EPA/Interior appropriations bill.
• Speculation then turned to Rockefeller, who said that there will be a vote this year on his measure to delay by two years EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The time frame for a vote is unclear.
• Now, Politico and others are reporting that Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) could offer Rockefeller’s proposal as an amendment to the defense authorization bill.

Looming over all of this are the administration’s efforts to move forward on greenhouse gas regulations. In fact, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said this week that she plans to issue guidance on the regulations soon.

A total of 15 people had filed by the 5 p.m. deadline today — three Democrats, 11 Republicans and Jesse Johnson, a member of the West Virginia Mountain Party. Though Manchin does have two challengers for the Democratic nomination — former state Secretary of State Ken Hechler and former state Del. Sheirl Fletcher — he is still heavily favored to get the nomination in the Aug. 28 primary.

John Raese, a prominent businessman who has already run in two past Senate races, is by far the best-known Republican to file. He lost 52-48 percent in a 1984 open-seat race against then-Gov. Jay Rockefeller (D), but only got 34 percent of the vote in a 2006 contest against Byrd.

A Rasmussen Reports poll released today indicates Raese would not even come close to winning the race this time either — Manchin leads him 51-35 percent. Part of the issue: Only 56 percent of Republicans would support him in that match-up, while another 29 percent would give their vote to Manchin.

There is no doubt state Republicans are dismayed by Capito’s decision to forgo a Senate bid in favor of only running for re-election to her House seat, though the law authorizing the special Nov. 2 election gave her the option of running for both seats simultaneously.

“We were pinning our hopes on Shelley, and while we respect her decision, we are very disappointed,” state party chairman Doug McKinney told The Charleston Gazette. “I thought that would have been a great race.”

If leadership can get the support of all 33 “yes” votes, the 16 “probably yes” votes and the 10 lawmakers listed as “on the fence” (which is a big “if”), that only brings the vote count to 59, according to Politico. That means leadership needs to convince one “probably no” lawmaker to support a final bill.

Politico lists five Democrats in the “probably no” category: Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Carte Goodwin (D-W.Va.) (who underscored his opposition to cap-and-trade last week), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-.W.Va.).

Worth noting: If Lincoln’s Senate race remains as tough as it now appears and Goodwin steps aside, as expected, to let another Democrat run for his seat in the fall, four of those five “probably no” Democrats won’t be around next year. Freed from electoral pressure, might one of them “vote his/her conscience” and support an energy bill? Only time will tell.

Goodwin, whom Gov. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) introduced during a press conference today as his nominee to replace late Sen. Robert Byrd (D), said during the event that while he would not get into a lengthy policy discussion with the assembled reporters, he opposed the climate bill on its merits.

“I will not support any piece of legislation that threatens any West Virginia job or any West Virginia family,” he said.

Goodwin’s opposition to the legislation is not surprising — Manchin himself has come out against cap-and-trade, and The Hill notes that he had said he would not appoint someone who favored the legislation. But Goodwin’s vocal opposition to it makes one thing clear — he is a placeholder for Manchin, who is all but assured to run in November’s anticipated special election.

Updated at 4:36 p.m.

“We will take up and pass unemployment legislation,” Rockefeller said.

Rockefeller announced Goodwin’s anticipated vote as he made remarks during a press conference today. West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) announced during the presser that Goodwin, Manchin’s former general counsel, will replace the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D).

Updated at 3:32 p.m.

Here is the statement, courtesy of CNN:

“Carte Goodwin is unquestionably among West Virginia’s best and brightest.

“He is widely respected and admired across our state, and has served West Virginia as an attorney, General Counsel to Governor Manchin and Chairman of the West Virginia School Building Authority – working with great character, dignity and professionalism to serve and protect the public good, and always keeping West Virginia families and the challenges they face each day at the very forefront of his thinking.”

Rockefeller’s statement went out before Manchin publicly confirmed Goodwin was his pick. Manchin will announce the selection at 2 p.m.

The EPA was required by the Supreme Court to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act, if it found them to endanger the public — which it did last December. Murkowski’s resolution would have, in effect, ruled that the EPA was wrong in its scientific assessment that greenhouse gases posed a threat.

The Democrats joining all Republicans in voting for the resolution were: Evan Bayh (Ind.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.).

Even if it had passed the Senate, the resolution would have faced steep odds in the House and a certain veto from President Obama. Still, it would have sent a powerful sign about the Senate’s willingness to tackle carbon emissions ahead of the upcoming debate on energy and/or climate legislation.

Yet as The Charleston Daily Mail reports today, that isn’t the case. Instead, Blankenship was found over the weekend attacking the critics of Massey’s long and damning safety record, including Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who had called the company a “rogue” operator in the immediate wake of the tragedy.

Blankenship said the comment was “total nonsense.”

“I think about how evil people can be and how misplaced their priorities can be and unfortunate it is that people that can reach the level of senator or president or representative or head of the union — how wrong they can be,” Blankenship said. “But I’ve seen a lot of it over my time.”

That wasn’t all. Blankenship also went after President Obama — for seeking counsel from “the union element” — and United Mine Workers President Cecil Roberts for his “political agenda.”

“Cecil has no more idea what happened at UBB than I do,” Blankenship said.

In Blankenship’s defense, at least we know exactly where he stands.