WASHINGTON -- For Alaska's two senators, there's no easy decision when it comes to the massive global warming bill being debated this week in the U.S. Senate.

Alaskans are already paying higher-than-average prices for fuel, and few experts predict that the legislation, which aims to scale back greenhouse gas emissions, will do anything to bring down the cost of energy.

But Alaskans also are seeing the first effects of global warming, and the state's leaders recognize the environmental peril faced by coastal communities.

"I think what you're seeing play out on the floor is good, meaningful substantive debate about an issue that people across the country care about," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, but she added, "The question is, if I'm going to tell Alaskans we need to reduce our emissions, I need to be able to give them some sense of what they may anticipate in terms of costs to them and their family."

Senators this week have been talking nonstop about the complex legislation, known as the Climate Security Act. Its main sponsors are Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va.

The climate change legislation sets ambitious goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in part by forcing companies and utilities to buy permits to pollute and capping overall emissions. The bill aims to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 19 percent from current levels over the next 12 years, and by 71 percent by 2050.

Wednesday, the global warming bill stalled in the Senate after Republicans complained that Democrats were holding up judicial nominations. Republicans held up the bill by refusing to let an amendment by Boxer go forward without the Senate clerk reading the entire 500-page proposal -- an estimated eight-hour task.

The legislation also includes dozens of provisions to help businesses and consumers cope with the transition, including something that both Murkowski and Sen. Ted Stevens like: $50 billion to help coastal Alaskan communities facing erosion problems caused by global warming.

Even so, Murkowksi said she probably wouldn't vote for the bill, although she has met with one of its sponsors, Lieberman, to discuss her Alaska-related concerns. She's worried about what the legislation will mean to the continued operation of the state's three oil refineries -- as well as what it means for the future of the state's proposed natural gas pipeline.

So far, Murkowski said, no one has been able to offer up reliable numbers on what the bottom line cost of the legislation will be to Alaska consumers. The estimates she's seen range from a $700 to $4,700 annual increase in energy expenses.

"The ranges are just all over the map, depending on the model and what variables they use," she said.

Both Murkowski and Stevens are especially concerned about what the bill means for the future of the natural gas pipeline.

Stevens is "not opposed to reducing carbon emissions," his spokesman, Aaron Saunders said. The senator's work to increase fuel efficiency standards for cars "will do more to reduce emissions than any other bill ever signed into law," Saunders added.

But Stevens also is worried about a short analysis by the state Department of Transportation, which has circulated an e-mail to the state's congressional delegation suggesting that the global warming bill threatens the construction of the natural gas pipeline. The DOT memo suggests that it will be difficult to scale back overall emissions in Alaska during construction of the pipeline, threatening approval of the project.

The senator is "seriously concerned about how this legislation would impact resource development and the gas pipeline," Saunders said.