The Senate is slated to vote June 10 on Sen. Murkowski's resolution to strip EPA's power to regulate greenhouse gases.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, right. The Senate is slated to vote June 10 on Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-Alaska) resolution that strips EPA's power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, according to Murkowski's office. (AP Photo/Harry Hamburg) The Senate is slated to vote June 10 on Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-Alaska) resolution that strips EPA's power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, according to Murkowski's office.

Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Murkowski, said the senator struck a deal with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Monday night on bringing the filibuster-proof resolution to the floor next month, with a vote expected June 10.

Murkowski has 40 co-sponsors - including centrist Democrats Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) - for the plan.

Murkowski's plan overturns EPA's "endangerment finding" last year that greenhouse gases pose a threat to humans. The finding is the legal precursor to EPA rules that limit heat-trapping emissions from cars, power plants, factories and other sources.

Reid's office did not provide immediate comment Tuesday morning.

Murkowski is bringing up the measure under the little-used Congressional Review Act, which gives Congress the power to block federal regulations but has been used successfully just once.

Resolutions under the act are immune from filibuster, but it remains highly uncertain whether Murkowski can corral 10 more votes - especially if lawmakers can find cover by backing less aggressive alternatives.

Sen. Robert Casey (D-Pa.) said recently that he is working on a plan with Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) to shield smaller industrial sources from regulation.

And Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) several months ago introduced a bill that would require a two-year delay in EPA regulation of stationary industrial sources - like power plants - while leaving EPA regulation of tailpipe emissions untouched.

Also, even if the measure cleared the Senate, advocates of blocking EPA would have to force a vote on companion House legislation. Murkowski's plan also faces a near-certain veto if it got that far - the White House has repeatedly criticized her resolution.

Murkowski alleges that EPA regulation under its existing Clean Air Act powers will have harmful economic effects. EPA, under recently finalized rules, will begin phasing in greenhouse gas permit requirements for large sources like coal-fired power plants and refineries next year.

But Murkowski fears that EPA will eventually impose burdensome rules across a wide swath of the economy and does not believe that EPA's plan to limit the regulations to large emitters will hold up in court.