Senator Dianne Feinstein?s attempt to give states the same power over liquefied natural gas terminals as they have over offshore facilities under the Deepwater Port Act failed to make it into the Senate energy bill this week. The amendment, defeated on a 52-45 vote, would have kept the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from having complete authority over terminal siting if the controversial energy legislation goes into effect. The LNG amendment was coauthored by a dozen Senators, mostly from coastal states. ?I do not oppose LNG sites in California,? said Feinstein (D-California). Her amendment would have provided states with veto authority if terminals violated environmental laws, while allowing states to make safety determinations. ?In a post 9\/11 world, you have to look at siting differently?the specific risk that LNG terminals pose,? she said. ?FERC is no guardian of safety.? ?If you don?t want risk, don?t get out of bed in the morning,? retorted Senator Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico). He said LNG was a ?minor risk? and chastised Californians for preventing new sources of energy development. An amendment to start a market in emissions credits to reduce impacts on global climate change and impose mandatory emissions caps lost on a 38-60 vote. The language was a watered-down attempt to revive similar legislation, by Senators John McCain (R-Arizona) and Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut), that was defeated in 2003. The language was ?far less stringent? than the Kyoto protocols, according to McCain. It would have the market reduce emissions ?without the old command and control,? Lieberman added. In 2003, the debate was about whether or not climate change existed, but that is now an accepted fact, McCain said. He also noted that his amendment would have promoted nuclear power. Another global warming amendment, by Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), passed on a 66-29 vote. It encapsulates the Bush administration?s voluntary approach to action on global warming. The provision gives $2 billion in tax credits for nukes, renewables, carbon sequestration, and coal gasification over five years. It is an attempt to tie greenhouse gas emissions to economic output. It also declares that climate change is a foreign policy issue and requires greenhouse gas reduction trade-related barriers to be identified. Also in the ?voluntary? mode, a nonbinding action was taken at the behest of Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico) that puts the Senate on record as saying that global warming is a problem and calls on Congress to develop at some future time a mandatory plan to cut emissions. Another nonbinding motion, from Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), which would have had the nation engage in more international negotiations on climate change, was defeated. Nuclear subsidies in the bill total $10.1 billion, according to Public Citizen. That includes $5.7 billion in tax credits but excludes the cost of loan guarantees or the limits on accident liability, known as the Price-Anderson Act. With little debate, the Energy Tax Policy Incentives Act was added to the bill this week. It extends and modifies credits for renewables, including 0.9 cent\/kWh for biomass, small irrigation hydro, and muni solid waste for five years. New nuclear plants would get a 1.8 cents\/kWh credit over eight years. ?Clean coal? would get a 20 percent investment tax credit for gasification units. It allows a deduction for buildings that reduce consumption by 50 percent. Contractors of new energy-efficient homes would also receive credits, with residential photovoltaic, fuel cell, and hot water installations at 30 percent. Business properties? solar would also receive credits at that level. On June 23, the Senate voted 92-4 to limit debate and action on the bill. Thus, most of the 170 amendments that have been filed will not make it into the bill. Among the other amendments addressed this week was one that commissioned a study for the roof of the Senate office building to facilitate energy-efficiency technology, which passed. Another amendment, which failed, would have provided for local control for windmill siting. A final vote is expected June 28.