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!
ZERO-CARBON-BY-2050 PLAN MAGNIFIES DEMOCRATIC DIVISIONS: Key Democrats sought to present a “united front” Tuesday in announcing a goal of adopting legislation by the end of the year for the U.S. to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions across the economy by 2050.
But the target set by the Energy and Commerce Committee, the primary legislative body for developing climate change legislation in the House, magnified divisions among Democrats on the particulars of how fast to decarbonize the economy, and how to do it.
The zero emissions by 2050 timeline set by the committee is consistent with the consensus established by climate scientists, including the United Nations scientific panel, for the required action needed to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
But progressive groups behind the Green New Deal have pressed for a faster timeline.
“I don’t want you to get the impression we are not trying to incorporate ideas from those who support the Green New Deal,” said Committee Chairman Frank Pallone of New Jersey, who led a group of Democrats unveiling the new goal at a Capitol Hill press conference. “We are trying to come up with a united front.”
Democrats hear the message: Some members of the Democratic coalition proved him right. Representatives from major environmental groups like the Sierra Club attended the press conference, and others such as the Environmental Defense Fund and National Wildlife Federation issued supportive statements.
Representative Kathy Castor of Florida, the chair of Democrats’ Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, also got Pallone’s memo seeking cooperation.
“A 100% clean energy economy is the central pillar for any serious climate plan and it’s a goal we share,” she said.
Others push back: Yet the progressive Sunrise Movement, a group of young people that was a driving force behind the Green New Deal, issued a sarcasm-laced statement decrying Democratic leaders for setting a goal with no legislation.
“It’s great that Democratic leaders are finally laying out their plan to make a plan to confront the climate emergency,” said Sunrise co-founder Varshini Prakash.
Other environmental groups piled on.
“Pushing the deadline for action to 2050 waves the white flag of surrender,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity.
Key details and questions are unanswered: Energy and Commerce Democrats did not provide specifics about what legislation to achieve the target would entail.
They also refused to answer sensitive questions, such as whether nuclear power or carbon capture for coal and natural gas plants should qualify toward the goal. Democrats don’t have consensus over the best ways to combat climate change, Pallone acknowledged, even if they agree it’s an urgent problem that Republicans and the Trump administration have failed to sufficiently address.
“The worst thing that can happen is a circular firing squad among those who believe climate change is real,” said Representative Mike Doyle, a Pennsylvania Democrat.
What these differences mean for legislation: Democratic climate policy advocates and political scientists say the disagreements are a predictable part of trying to tackle the complex issue of climate change.
“Some of the disagreements within the caucus come from carbon-intensive corporations and unions in members’ districts,” Leah Stokes, an assistant professor of environmental politics at the University of California at Santa Barbara, told me. “These groups have been successful at promoting climate denial and delay for over three decades. The question is: will members wake up and recognize there’s more than their seat that is at stake? So far, there are still climate laggards in the party.”
Other Democrats said the Energy and Commerce Committee is right to start the legislative process with a target. The committee is planning a series of hearings that began Wednesday to help fill in the details of legislation.
“It is good that they set a target that holds some consensus within the party because with that and some of the higher ambitions for 2030, we now have a space between the two to negotiate within, which I do not see as infighting,” said Greg Carlock, Green New Deal research director at the progressive think tank Data for Progress.
Welcome to Daily on Energy, written by Washington Examiner Energy and Environment Writer Josh Siegel (@SiegelScribe). Email [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.
REPUBLICAN FRANCIS ROONEY TO INTRODUCE CARBON TAX BILL THAT CUTS PAYROLL TAXES: Republican Representative Francis Rooney is introducing a carbon tax bill Thursday that would use most of the revenue to reduce payroll taxes.
Rooney represents a southwest Florida district exposed to sea level rise, and is one of only two congressional Republicans who publicly support a carbon tax to fight climate change.
He previously introduced a different carbon tax bill this year that would return the revenue to U.S. households as monthly rebate checks, an approach that is favored by oil and gas companies and many economists.
“The idea is to have several of these carbon tax bills on the table for debate,” Rooney told me in an interview. “All are legitimate and each has its own constituency. I would think this one would be easier to sell for Republicans because it’s supportive of business and jobs rather than just giving it back to families.”
The bill is modeled after an approach promoted by the conservative group Alliance for Market Solutions that argues the best way to convince skeptical Republicans is to use the proceeds of a carbon tax to reduce other taxes.
How the bill works: Rooney’s bill would set a carbon tax of $30 per metric ton, increasing 5% per year, leveling the tax on producers of fossil fuels at the “upstream” level of the economy, meaning coal is taxed at the mine, natural gas at the processing plant, and petroleum at the refinery.
It uses most of the revenue — 70% of it — to reduce payroll taxes for employees and employers, amounting to a nearly one percentage point cut in the total payroll tax rate.
The other 30% of the revenue would go into a “carbon trust fund” and be spent on research and development on clean energy technologies, energy efficiency improvements, and climate change adaptation measures.
Some of the fund would also be spent on block grants to states to compensate low-income households for increased energy costs from the tax.
OHIO SIGNS LAW TO BAIL OUT COAL AND NUCLEAR, RILING GAS AND RENEWABLES: The oil and gas industry and renewables advocates decried Ohio’s elected officials Tuesday for approving legislation subsidizing uneconomic nuclear and coal plants.
The Ohio House of Representatives voted 51-38 to pass the controversial bill, HB 6, after the state Senate approved it as well. Both chambers are controlled by Republicans, but the measure also received support from some Democrats. Governor Mike DeWine, also a Republican, signed the bill it into law Tuesday night.
The bill provides $150 million a year in subsidies through 2026 to FirstEnergy Solutions’ Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear plants for seven years. FirstEnergy has said it would retire the two plants, which produce 15% of the state’s electricity, without financial relief.
It also authorizes a monthly surcharge paid by retail electric customers to keep alive two coal plants, including one in Indiana.
This looks sort of familiar: FirstEnergy Solutions, which has filed for bankruptcy, pushed for a similar national subsidy program for coal and nuclear plants, but the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rejected the proposal.
While other states, such as Illinois, New York, and New Jersey, have also acted to compensate nuclear plants to keep them operating for their zero-carbon value, none have enacted programs as far-reaching as Ohio’s.
The bill also makes significant cuts to renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, shrinking Ohio’s renewable portfolio standard goal of 12.5 percent to 8.5 percent. It cancels the renewable portfolio program after 2026.
Opponents aren’t done fighting the bill: The gas, wind, and solar industries oppose the bill because it would prop up more expensive competitors, and raise electricity rates for consumers.
Opponents to the bill said they may seek to include a referendum on the 2020 election ballot to overturn the legislation.
“API is disappointed in the legislature for passing this corporate bailout for nuclear and coal-burning power plants, putting the financial burden on Ohio taxpayers and disadvantaging other electricity generation sources, particularly affordable natural gas,” said Chris Zeigler, executive director of the Ohio branch of the American Petroleum Institute.
“Ohio’s legislature has chosen to take a costly step backward by weakening the state’s renewable portfolio standard,” said Andrew Gohn of the American Wind Energy Association. “House Bill 6 won’t make Ohio’s air cleaner, but it will hike consumer electric bills and send both jobs and clean energy investment to Ohio’s neighbors.”
FERC TO CREATE NEW DIVISION TO HELP REVIEW LNG APPLICATIONS: FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee announced Tuesday that the agency is creating a new division to review an increasing number of permits for liquified natural gas export projects.
The Division of LNG Facility Review & Inspection will have 20 employees based in Washington D.C, and another eight employees based in Houston — the U.S. energy hub — working out of a new regional office.
“As the demand for U.S. LNG and the number and complexity of project applications has grown, the commission has experienced a similar growth in the need for FERC to expand its oversight in this program area,” said Chatterjee, a Republican.
For years, FERC has struggled with responding to a backlog of applications by companies looking to build facilities to export natural gas abroad. The agency, however, has issued five approvals of LNG export facilities this year.
INSLEE OPPOSES PIPELINE IN BID TO END ALL FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE: Presidential candidate Jay Inslee said Tuesday he opposes a proposed oil pipeline in Minnesota, in his latest attempt to show he’s serious about his proposed agenda to reject all fossil fuel infrastructure.
Inslee, the governor of Washington, is the second candidate after Bernie Sanders to come out against Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline, a 337-mile project that would carry nearly 32 million gallons of oil per day.
The pipeline would cross the Mississippi Headwaters and tribal land. Enbridge said the pipeline is needed to replace an existing pipeline from the 1960s that is corroding and only operating at half capacity. Inslee said it threatens drinking water because of potential leaks, and infringes on the rights of indigenous people who use the headwaters for hunting, fishing, and harvesting wild rice.
“To defeat the climate crisis, we must transition our economy off fossil fuels to an economy run on clean energy and that begins with rejecting new fossil fuel infrastructure,” Inslee said.
Inslee has also called for the closure of another Enbridge oil and gas pipeline that runs across the Great Lakes in Michigan, and said he opposes the construction of a replacement tunnel to improve the pipeline.
The Rundown
San Diego Union-Tribune Peak fire season is near and the federal government is short hundreds of firefighters
Wall Street Journal USDA report sees dire climate change impact on US crops
NPR Stepping into the sun: A mission to bring solar energy to communities of color
Reuters Global oil market in glut, but not a big enough one for OPEC
Calendar
THURSDAY | July 25
10 a.m., 1324 Longworth. House Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources holds a hearing on “Increasing Renewable Energy on Public Lands.”
10 a.m., 366 Dirksen. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee holds a hearing on “Energy Innovation.”
