WASHINGTON — The Senate voted Wednesday to give federal regulators authority over the location of liquefied natural gas terminals, despite objections from governors, including California's Arnold Schwarzenegger, that states should be have an equal say in deciding where such projects are built.
Republican and Democratic officials from city halls to Capitol Hill have expressed concern that the terminals could become terrorism targets or pose other safety risks, and they have sought a role in siting them.
But President Bush has pushed for federal control in deciding where terminals are built, saying that a lengthy approval process could delay the building of facilities that are important for the economy.
On Wednesday, a majority of the Senate agreed with him. The lawmakers voted 52 to 45 against adding a provision to the energy legislation to give governors power to veto or impose conditions on the terminals.
As a result, the Senate bill -- like energy legislation already approved by the House -- would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the final word on where terminals are built, virtually ensuring that the provision will be included in any final bill that emerges from Congress.
The action came as the Senate headed toward approval of a sweeping overhaul of national energy policy, a Bush priority that has gained momentum as energy prices have surged.
In another action, the Senate rejected, 38 to 60, a proposal by Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) to establish a mandatory cap on industrial emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. The measure garnered five fewer votes than a similar version two years ago.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) had voted for that proposal but withdrew her support this time because of a new provision that could have provided subsidies for nuclear power plants. Her California Democratic colleague, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, supported the McCain-Lieberman proposal.
Republicans criticized a mandatory limit as an unfair burden on the U.S. economy, and noted that many other large emitters of greenhouse gases -- including China -- had not committed to reducing them. Democrats focused on recent scientific calls for action on global warming and argued that the U.S., the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, had a duty to respond.
Lieberman argued that despite the Senate's apparent lack of interest in his proposal, momentum was clearly building among businesses, states and U.S. mayors to deal with global warming in a serious way.
