Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine and get Washington Briefing: politics and policy stories that will keep you up to date with what’s going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!
DEBATE WILL TEST WHETHER CLIMATE CHANGE CAN MEASURE UP TO IMPEACHMENT: Environmental groups and climate activists have low expectations for tonight’s fourth Democratic primary presidential debate in Ohio.
“We had momentum, but impeachment has eclipsed that,” Leah Stokes, an assistant professor of environmental politics at the University of California at Santa Barbara, told Josh. “We are really not the No. 1 issue right now which is unfortunate because we were before.”
The overcrowded stage — a dozen candidates, the most in history — will likely be confronted with more immediate questions about impeaching President Trump, and his pullback from Syria, making climate change an afterthought.
“We are fairly sanguine to the reality that this debate is likely to focus on Syria and impeachment,” Brett Hartl of the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund told Josh.
Climate change has received record attention in the previous three debates, but not enough to satisfy activists who note that Democratic primary voters list the issue among their top concerns.
“Outside of the dedicated forums, questions about the climate crisis have taken up far too little debate time so far,” Denis Dison, a spokesperson for the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, told Abby. “And yes, the impeachment inquiry may crowd out policy substance tonight.”
As Dison notes, there have been two town halls dedicated to climate change hosted by television networks, but those forums have not allowed candidates to debate each other, instead serving questions to candidates one-by-one.
The forums did spotlight policy differences on issues such as fracking, nuclear power, carbon pricing, and the Senate filibuster, but the sprawling debates have not featured substantial discussions.
“The DNC rules have failed the public by not thinning out the field,” Hartl said. “If Tulsi Gabbard, Beto O’Rourke, and other marginal candidates are still on the debate stage, then having a good debate on any topic is nearly impossible. Saturday Night Live is doing a better job focusing in on the likely candidates.”
Outside the debates and forums, Democratic candidates are not adequately campaigning on climate change despite the fact that all participants have released comprehensive plans to address the issue, according to the League of Conservation Voters.
LCV released a new report Tuesday reviewing how much candidates are focusing on climate. For example, a review of the stump speeches of the 12 candidates who qualified for the October debate — delivered from June through September at three major events in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina — found almost three quarters (23 out of 31) included some mention of climate change, but only 13 out of 31 speeches discussed specific climate solutions.
Welcome to Daily on Energy, written by Washington Examiner Energy and Environment Writers Josh Siegel (@SiegelScribe) and Abby Smith (@AbbySmithDC). Email [email protected] or [email protected] for tips, suggestions, calendar items, and anything else. If a friend sent this to you and you’d like to sign up, click here. If signing up doesn’t work, shoot us an email, and we’ll add you to our list.
LIGHTS ON IN CALIFORNIA MEANS SPOTLIGHT ON PG&E: Power was restored to California counties by end-of-day Saturday, but Pacific Gas and Electric’s troubles are hardly over.
In total, nearly 800,000 homes and businesses were affected by the power shutdowns, which started on Wednesday amid severe wind conditions that PG&E said it was concerned could spark wildfires. The utility found 50 instances weather-related damages to its system in the areas affected by the blackout, Jeff Smith, a spokesman for the utility, told Abby.
But Democratic policymakers, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, aren’t satisfied. They are already calling on the state’s utility regulators to evaluate PG&E’s performance and hold the utility accountable for any missteps — of which Newsom thinks there were plenty.
“It was clear from the start that PG&E implemented this extraordinary measure with astounding neglect and lack of preparation,” Newsom wrote in a letter Monday to California’s chief utility regulator. Newsom said he also will urge PG&E to provide affected customers with a rebate — $100 for homes and $250 for small businesses that lost power.
Meanwhile, California’s fight against fossil fuels rages on: Newsom signed half a dozen bills Saturday, at the close of California’s legislative session, targeting oil and gas production in the state.
One of those bills, AB 342, aims to prevent Trump administration attempts to extract oil and gas on California soil. The legislation bars any California entity from entering into a lease that would allow construction of new oil and gas equipment on federal lands.
LAWSUITS HEAT UP THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE: Litigation against fossil fuel companies is heating up.
Two big developments: This month 26 companies sued by the city of Baltimore asked the U.S. Supreme Court to keep a Maryland state court from hearing the case. The companies want the case transferred to federal court, where similar lawsuits have failed and a single ruling could be issued, rather than sprawling decisions across jurisdictions.
Meanwhile, a separate lawsuit filed by New York state against Exxon — which takes a different legal approach — goes to trial Oct. 23, accusing the company of committing securities fraud by misleading investors about the danger climate change poses for its business.
What’s at stake: David Bookbinder, an attorney with the libertarian Niskanen Center involved in one of the public nuisance suits, told Josh the results of the public nuisance cases could help determine who bears the costs of climate change.
“The local governments are paying more and more money to provide basic government services that are more expensive because of climate change,” said Bookbinder.
Industry fights back: Companies contend that climate change is better handled through public policy and that litigation threatens to undermine cooperation between the industry and policymakers.
“If these municipalities really want to do something about climate change, they should work with manufacturers on local energy innovations, not waste time and resources on this baseless litigation,” said Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, an initiative of the National Association of Manufacturers.
Read more in this week’s Washington Examiner magazine.
TRUMP PREPARES PROPOSED NEPA REFORMS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS: The Trump administration is moving closer to releasing proposed reforms to how the federal government implements the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, in permitting and environmental reviews for infrastructure projects.
The White House’s Council on Environmental Quality submitted proposed updates to the regulations governing NEPA to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on Friday, signaling a public release is coming soon.
What it means: The change would build off several Trump administration executive orders from 2018 meant to streamline the permitting and environmental review process for federally funded projects, ranging from pipelines, to highways, to transmission.
In June, CEQ also issued draft guidance directing federal agencies to limit consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews.
That guidance would give agencies the discretion to ignore the indirect effects of greenhouse gas emissions of a given project, such as a pipeline, and seeks to clarify that agencies only focus on the “direct” environmental effects of the project itself without weighing the after effects on climate change. Indirect emissions would include natural gas after it has been shipped downstream and used in a power plant, for example.
The changes to the NEPA regulations look more broadly beyond greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
CEQ has not issued a major update to NEPA’s regulations since 1978. While the Trump administration can’t change the underlying statute absent action from Congress, the law is broadly written and courts have historically deferred to CEQ’s interpretation of NEPA’s regulations.
INDUSTRY AND GREENS LEAD BIPARTISAN PUSH FOR PASSAGE OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR BILL: A coalition of businesses, industry groups, environmentalists, and labor unions wrote a letter Tuesday to House and Senate leadership asking them to pass legislation spurring the development of advanced nuclear technologies.
“NELA would help reestablish the United States as a global leader in the next generation of emissions-free nuclear energy,” wrote the groups, which include ClearPath Action, Third Way, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Nature Conservancy, utilities Duke Energy and Xcel Energy, and more.
The Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, which was approved in June by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, would expand the use of federal power purchase agreements, build demonstration projects for a range of nuclear technologies, establish new federal research facilities, set new national goals and strategies, and ensure the availability of advanced reactor fuel.
COMPANIES MUST DO MORE ON CLIMATE THAN VOLUNTARY PLEDGES, ENVIRONMENTALISTS SAY: Businesses, given their power to shape public policy, should be advocating for science-based climate policies in line with the latest international climate science, 11 major environmental groups wrote Tuesday in an open call to companies.
The groups are urging companies to more clearly align their policy advocacy with the voluntary emissions reductions goals many have set. That should include companies working to align their trade groups’ lobbying with a goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, the groups wrote.
Signatories on the letter, also published in the New York Times, include: Environmental Defense Fund, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the sustainable investment group Ceres.
Some companies already agree with the environmental groups. The Sustainable Food Policy Alliance — including Danone, Mars, Unilever, and Nestle, ran a full-page ad Tuesday in Roll Call supporting the environmental groups’ call.
EVERYONE LOVES THEIR SUVs: And their impact on global greenhouse gas emissions and oil demand is huge, the International Energy Agency says in a new analysis.
The number of SUVs on the road has grown exponentially in the last decade — from 35 million vehicles in 2010 to now over 200 million — and the bigger, heavier cars were the second-largest driver of global greenhouse gas increases since 2010, according to the IEA.
If that growth continues, the addition in global oil demand could jeopardize the ability of electric cars to make a dent in transportation emissions, two IEA analysts wrote. Expect more on this issue from IEA when the agency releases its World Energy Outlook next month.
The Rundown
Politico ‘I’m standing here in the middle of climate change’: How USDA is failing farmers
Los Angeles Times Lithium will fuel the clean energy boom. This company may have a breakthrough
Reuters: No choice but to invest in oil, Shell CEO says
Bloomberg: Coal industry pushed state regulators to lobby for power rescue
New York Times: How will climate change alter agriculture? Winemakers are finding out
Calendar
THURSDAY | OCTOBER 17
9 a.m. 2020 Rayburn. The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis holds a hearing on “Solving the Climate Crisis: Cleaner, Stronger Buildings.”
10 a.m., 1324 Longworth. The House Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy Mineral Resources holds a hearing on “The Case for Climate Optimism: Realistic Pathways to Achieving Net Zero Emissions.”
10 a.m. 406 Dirksen. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety holds a hearing on “Reducing Emissions While Driving Economic Growth: Industry-led Initiatives.”
10:30 am. 366 Dirksen. The Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee holds a hearing to “examine the status of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and related energy security issues.”
