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!
BUTTIGIEG SAYS NO TO NEW NUCLEAR: Pete Buttigieg would not consider new nuclear as part of the future power mix, taking a new position on an issue that has divided the Democratic presidential field.
“I would not look for new nuclear as part of our power mix,” Buttigieg told the New York Times editorial board in an interview published Thursday. “As far as the kind of nuclear power that we currently have, the kind of fission power that generates waste, I don’t believe that that is the long-term future when we know so much potential lies in other forms of renewable energy generation that don’t have that set of problems,” he added.
While new nuclear would not be a priority for Buttigieg, it’s unclear if his position applies to small modular reactors being developed that are intended to produce less waste. Andrew Yang, by contrast, is specifically enthusiastic about advanced reactors, promising to invest $50 billion in “the next generation of safe, clean nuclear power.” Joe Biden’s climate plan says he too would spend on R&D for advanced reactors with the goal of cutting their cost to half of today’s reactors.
Greater consensus around existing nukes: Existing nuclear plants are part of the “pathway” to carbon neutrality in the “medium-term”, Buttigieg added. That position puts him on the same plane as Elizabeth Warren, who recently said she would keep existing nuclear plants online.
“We have to stop putting more carbon in the air. That means we need to keep some of our nuclear in place,” Warren said during the December debate.
Warren said, though, that she would not “build more nuclear” plants.
Bernie Sanders has staked the most extreme position, saying he would look to shut down existing nuclear plants, along with stopping the building of new ones.
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.
BLOOMBERG’S SWERVE INTO TRANSPORTATION: Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg called for a requirement that all new vehicles sold in America be carbon-free by 2035.
Bloomberg’s proposal released Friday targets the transportation sector, the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, as part of his overall goal of cutting emissions economy-wide 50% by 2030 in order to fully decarbonize before midcentury.
His plan looks broadly similar to other candidates, but it represents new territory for Bloomberg, whose philanthropic work has mostly focused on the power sector with shutting down coal plats.
A Bloomberg campaign adviser told reporters that a president could “go far” using executive authority to mandate that new vehicles be emissions-free, but much of his agenda would no doubt require cooperation from Congress.
Focusing on all aspects of transportation: His plan would also force 15% of new trucks and buses to be emissions-free by 2030
Bloomberg would strengthen vehicle fuel emission standards that Trump has sought to weaken, and reaffirm the right of states to set tougher rules.
To lower the cost of EVs, he would expand tax credits for buyers and allow low- and moderate-income people to trade in their gas-based vehicles for electric ones, or instead receive vouchers they can use on transit.
He’d also expand federal grants for school districts and transit agencies to buy zero-emissions buses, collaborate with ride-share and taxi companies to convert their fleets to EVs, and build a network of charging stations along highways.
Bloomberg called to jump-start the dormant U.S. high-speed rail system by working with states to build at least one new high-speed rail corridor, or network, by 2025.
US EMISSIONS TO KEEP FALLING THROUGH 2021, BUT NOT BY MUCH: After a one-year increase in 2018 due to extreme weather, U.S. emissions will continue to fall through 2021, but not at a high rate.
U.S. energy-related carbon emissions fell 2.1% in 2019, and will decrease by 2.0% in 2020 and by 1.5% in 2021, the Energy Information Administration projected on Friday.
Cheap natural gas and renewables will continue to replace coal in the power sector. But absent a federal carbon policy, other sectors with less ready alternatives will likely see little change with their emissions.
MICROSOFT TARGETS BEYOND CARBON-NEUTRAL: The tech giant said Thursday it is aiming to be “carbon negative” by 2030, and it wants to remove all the carbon it’s ever emitted by 2050.
It’s a huge goal — especially since Microsoft says it will include indirect emissions, not just from the energy it uses, but also indirect emissions across its entire supply chain. In 2020 alone, Microsoft said it expects to emit 16 million metric tons of carbon.
Microsoft’s plan includes a number of steps, including expanding its $15 per ton carbon fee to include all of its supply chain emissions and implementing a new procurement process to encourage suppliers to cut carbon.
Perhaps getting the most buzz in climate circles: Microsoft is creating a $1 billion fund for new carbon reduction and carbon removal technologies. That could have a huge impact if the tech giant spent big dollars on technologies like carbon capture and direct air capture, helping to bring down their price point.
“Microsoft is creating a new market for CO2 reduction and CO2 removal,” Julio Friedmann, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, told Abby by email. “I hope American companies take notice that they have an opportunity to enter it. If so, they’ll have a competitive edge globally.”
But the devil is in the details: It isn’t clear yet how exactly Microsoft will divide up its new $1 billion fund. The company says it will target new technologies, but it doesn’t specify how much of the money will go toward carbon reduction projects versus carbon removal.
Noah Deich, executive director of Carbon180, said Microsoft’s fund could catalyze carbon removal tech if focused on funding breakthrough research to bring carbon removal projects to market, purchasing negative emissions services (instead of offsets) at market prices, and encouraging policymakers to set standards for verifying negative emissions projects.
Microsoft, though, doesn’t say definitively which carbon removal technologies it will use in its own portfolio. That could be a benefit, according to Friedmann, because it will allow the company to “do the work at the lowest cost and lowest risks.”
But Microsoft also appears to be questioning, at least for now, whether technology-based carbon removal solutions are economical. “Given the current state of technology and pricing, we will initially focus on nature-based solutions, with the goal of shifting to technology-based solutions between now and 2050, when they become more viable,” reads the plan from Microsoft president Brad Smith.
DHS WARNS CHEMICAL COMPANIES ABOUT POSSIBLE IRAN ATTACK: Chemical companies in the U.S. were put on notice by the federal government late Wednesday and told to boost cyber and physical security because of fears Iran could target them, the Washington Examiner’s Anna Giaritelli reports.
A notice issued by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency at the Department of Homeland Security states, “In light of recent international events with the potential for retaliatory aggression against the U.S. and our critical infrastructure, CISA urges facilities with chemicals of interest … to consider enhanced security measures to decrease the likelihood of a successful attack.”
Facilities included are those that produce toxic, flammable, and explosive materials.
CISA said it was not forcing all high-risk facilities to take action right now. But it said chemical facilities should immediately move to a state of heightened awareness, see that they are well-staffed for the near future, and make sure they can access DHS notification and reporting systems.
MORE AMERICANS ARE ALARMED ABOUT WARMING THAN EVER: Close to a third of Americans are “alarmed” about climate change, a tripling since 2014, according to the latest data from the Yale Program on Climate Communication.
In a note posted Thursday, Yale program experts say the shift in attitudes on climate change in the last five years has been dramatic.
In 2014, the number of Americans “alarmed” about global warming was nearly the same as those “dismissive” of it entirely. Now, those “dismissive” of climate change total just 10% of Americans. In addition to the 31% “alarmed” by warming, an additional 26% of Americans are “concerned,” according to the Yale data.
SHAKE-UPS AT ENERGY-RELATED TRADE GROUPS: The National Association of Manufacturers promoted Rachel Jones as its new vice president of energy and resources policy. The move comes after current vice president of energy policy Ross Eisenberg left to lead federal affairs at the American Chemistry Council.
The Rundown
Utility Dive Indiana bill would require Trump administration blessing to retire coal early
Time The reason fossil fuel companies are finally reckoning with climate change
E&E News and NBC News Toxic refinery leaks imperiled Philadelphia residents
Connecticut Mirror Conn. taking ‘a serious look’ at exiting regional power market
New York Times Reducing fire, and cutting carbon emissions, the aboriginal way
Calendar
TUESDAY | JAN. 21
The House is out.
WEDNESDAY | JAN. 22
10:00 a.m. 406 Dirksen. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee holds an oversight hearing on the Economic Development Administration.
