BIDEN’S TASK: How President Joe Biden squares the dueling priorities of decarbonization and energy security will be closely watched during tonight’s State of the Union address, the last of his first presidential term.
The speech will be a chance for Biden to play up his administration’s wins and make his case for reelection. But he will also be forced to placate two competing groups and assuage their frustrations.
Climate groups say Biden has reneged on some of his core campaign promises, opting to prioritize energy security or lower costs at the expense of his climate goals, while fossil fuel interests argue he hasn’t done enough to unleash domestic production. This could put him in a vulnerable position as he seeks reelection this November.
The climate imperative: Biden will be addressing an electorate that deeply cares about climate change and combating global warming: 73% of U.S. voters say they believe the government should take action to slash emissions by 50% by the end of the decade, according to a recent survey conducted by CNN.
While Biden can claim many new major policies geared toward addressing climate change, he’s also alienated climate allies and environmental groups by boosting U.S. oil production, approving the Willow drilling project in Alaska and allowing the sprawling Mountain Valley Pipeline to move forward, among other things.
The energy side: But energy issues are also a driving force. Gas prices, for one, are closely linked to presidential performance in public polls, and the record-high prices seen in June 2022 sent Biden’s approval rate plummeting to an all-time low.
Energy “is on the ballot this year,” American Petroleum Institute CEO Mike Sommers said in a recent interview, citing a recent poll API conducted with Ipsos that found most registered voters currently believe the U.S. is on the “wrong track” when it comes to energy policy.
Sommers and other industry figures have pressed for Biden to reverse course on major initiatives, including by lifting the pause on approving new LNG export terminals and easing the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule on tailpipe emissions. Biden is in fact reportedly going to scale back the tailpipe rules, and also moved in recent days to water down its planned rule on power plant emissions.
Tune in: Biden’s State of the Union address will air tonight at 9 PM ET. Watch it live here.
Welcome to Daily on Energy, written by Washington Examiner Energy and Environment writers Breanne Deppisch (@breannue_dep) and Nancy Vu (@NancyVu99). Email bdeppisch@washingtonexaminer dot com or nancy.vu@washingtonexaminer dot com 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.
RECA ACT FATE UNKNOWN: The Senate is expected to vote today on a bill compensating Americans exposed to radiation by nuclear projects undertaken by the federal government – but the fate of the bill remains unknown, with a number of Republicans still citing concerns over the cost.
The bill, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, is a priority of Sens. Josh Hawley and Ben Ray Luján. Hawley had previously objected to the passing of government funding bills to demand a vote on his measure, and secured an agreement with GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell to do so after it was stripped from the annual defense bill last year due to concerns about the price tag. However, a number of Republican senators told the Washington Examiner last night that they are still worried about the cost of implementing the bill.
“The price tag here is a little daunting,” said Sen. Cynthia Lummis, who has introduced similar legislation addressing RECA. “We want to try and make sure that people that are affected by it have gotten their issues addressed.”
The changes: The original bill would not only reauthorize RECA, but would expand the number of people eligible to receive compensation – including by creating a new benefit for people living near where the Manhattan Project waste was located in St. Louis – and promise a higher payout threshold of up to $150,000. However, the bill has changed since it was originally introduced, with the payout maximum lowered to $100,000. The components to expand the benefits to other states have remained intact, however, according to Hawley.
During yesterday’s caucus lunch, the Missouri Republican made his pitch to GOP colleagues to back the bill, arguing the necessity of a reauthorization before funding expires in June. Luján has also been reaching out to Democratic colleagues to whip support – handing out pamphlets to different offices to help inform their decision.
But even with the changes, some Republicans are holding out their “yes” vote if it doesn’t include a method to pay for the bill. Sen. John Cornyn said he’s working with Hawley on figuring out a way to pass the bill in the House and to include pay-for provisions. However, when asked if he would vote for the current Senate version that’s being voted on today (which doesn’t have pay-fors), he said he would not vote for it.
But who will vote for it? The Examiner was able to confirm that Sens. Roger Marshall, Mike Braun, Marco Rubio, Mike Crapo, and Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich will vote for the bill.
Undecideds: Sens. Lummis, Susan Collins, John Boozman, Rick Scott, Todd Young, Dan Sullivan, Mike Rounds, Bill Cassidy, and Tom Carper all said they were looking at the bill, and would not confirm how they would vote.
Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Joe Manchin wouldn’t comment on how he would vote, but noted that we “can’t put even more debt on the country.”
Senate math: All 48 Democrats, 3 Independents, and 9 Republicans will be needed to pass the bill. But even if it clears the Senate, it’ll face a tough sell in the House, where conservatives have been gung-ho on clamping down on further government spending.
But, if it somehow passes the House, it faces a good chance of being signed by President Joe Biden. The White House released a statement of administrative policy Wednesday that voiced support for the bill – a rare show of bipartisanship between the White House and Hawley, one of the most conservative lawmakers in the Senate.
BLOWBACK TO SEC CLIMATE DISCLOSURE RULE: Yesterday, the SEC finalized its long-anticipated rule to require companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions – but the measure is not passing muster with Republicans, who are taking both judicial and legislative actions against the controversial rule.
Sen. Tim Scott, the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, said Wednesday that he intends to use the Congressional Review Act to hold a vote on the rule, our Zachary Halaschak reports. The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to vote down administrative rules through an expedited process – but timing on a vote is not yet clear.
“The last time I checked, the SEC is a securities regulator that does not employ climate scientists, and it clearly has acted without regard to the onerous burdens placed on businesses of all sizes — a blatant disregard that will harm Main Street the most,” Scott said.
Scott called the rule “federal overreach” – a common argument amongst Republicans, who argue that the regulation stands outside of the agency’s authority.
But that’s not all: 10 states filed a petition for review on the SEC climate rule with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. These states include West Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Alaska, Indiana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wyoming, and Virginia.
The states argue that many public companies already disclose climate-related information, and pointed out the current disclosures these companies provide are “inconsistent” and difficult for investors to compare across companies. The petition includes recommendations on how to amend the finalized rules. Read that here.
LAWSUITS OVER EPA SOOT RULE: GOP-led states and industry groups filed three lawsuits meant to overturn an Environmental Protection Agency rule to tighten air quality standards for soot pollution.
As Reuters reports, the lawsuits were filed by 25 states that include Texas, Kentucky, and West Virginia, and a number of industry groups. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The EPA rule, which was finalized last month, had further restricted the average allowable concentration of fine particulate matter, otherwise known as soot, in the air. However, Republicans voiced opposition to the rule, arguing the standards would place even more financial burden on manufacturers, utilities, and families.
“This rule will drive jobs and investment out of Kentucky and overseas, leaving employers and hardworking families to pay the price,” Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman, whose state is co-leading the lawsuit, said in a statement. Read more on that here.
EXXON FILES ARBITRATION OVER GUYANA PROJECT: Exxon Mobil has filed an arbitration claim to protect what it argues is its right to pre-empt Chevron’s offer for a stake in a notable oil project in Guyana – further creating tension in a dispute that could ax Chevron’s $53 billion deal to acquire Hess.
Bloomberg reports that Exxon filed for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris on Wednesday, according to Senior Vice President Neil Chapman. Exxon, which owns and operates 45% of the Guyana project, is arguing that it has a right of first refusal over the exchange of ownership in Hess’ 30% stake, and said it would consider matching Chevron’s evaluation.
Why it’s important: The move is not only escalating a fight between some of the largest oil drillers over the project, but it affects several hedge funds that have been staking billions in arbitrage bets that are dependent on the deal’s closings. Read more on that here.
RUNDOWN
Washington Post Amid explosive demand, America is running out of power
Canary Media New policy proposal dims hopes of reviving community solar in California
Bloomberg Europe faces 3C of global warming. Here’s how it plans to cope
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this newsletter incorrectly identified one of the senators who said he was undecided on the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.
