GOP SCRUTINIZES CHANG: One clear takeaway from this week is that Senate Republicans are likely to put up resistance to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission nomination of Judy Chang, the former undersecretary of Energy and Climate Solutions for Massachusetts, over her record of promoting clean energy.
Republicans sounded far from convinced about Chang during the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s highly anticipated hearing on FERC nominees yesterday.
In his opening remarks, ranking member John Barrasso confronted Chang over her 2018 prediction to the Washington Examiner that New England would move away from natural gas within the next five years – where she argued that “it doesn’t make sense” to invest in pipelines and was fiscally irresponsible to do so.
“Under the law, FERC is responsible for ensuring the development of abundant supplies of natural gas at reasonable prices,” Barrasso said. “Ms. Chang in the past has advocated for the direct opposite. … The last thing FERC needs is someone eager to impose the failed policies of Massachusetts upon the rest of the nation.”
He’s not the only Republican to indicate opposition to Chang.
Sen. Steve Daines questioned the nominees on whether or not former FERC Chairman Richard Glick’s proposals to the agency – which were seen as key to adding renewable technologies to the grid, along with creating a more climate-centered process for approving natural gas pipelines – were outside of the body’s jurisdiction, and if they supported the commission’s decision to retreat on those plans.
Chang’s response: “I understand the tension. I have not reviewed everything in those policy statements. And if I were fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will dedicate my time to better understand the issues at hand.” She later stated that she supported the current commission’s decision to pull back from Glick’s approach.
“She wouldn’t give me a straight answer,” Daines later told the Washington Examiner. “I’m going to look through it in detail, but I got some real concerns.”
Sen. Mike Lee also questioned the nominee on her past comments at a Citizens Climate Forum Panel, and asked if she believed climate change should factor into FERC’s public interest determination.
Chang’s response: “In the context of the quote that you just cited, Senator, it’s about our individual lives and our personal contribution to the climate crisis that we face. As far as FERC’s role is concerned, if I have the honor to be confirmed, I will make sure that I follow the law and Congress is in the position to set the law and FERC is an agency that follows the law.”
Democrats, on the other hand, didn’t have as much of an issue with the Republican pick, Lindsey See, or David Rosner.
“I thought all three did a good job,” said John Hickenlooper. “They demonstrated they’re willing to work together and collaborate. They weren’t going to get bogged down in partisan issues. They’re going to look at doing everything they can to create a resilient, reliable network of transmission at the lowest possible cost.”
Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla and Independent Sen. Angus King told the Washington Examiner that they expect to support all three candidates.
The takeaway here: The next step is a committee mark-up to vote on the nominees. It’s not expected that too many Republicans will support Chang, if the hearing was any indication of how some GOP members will vote. But the key vote here on Chang will be from the centrist committee chairman himself, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, in order to advance the nominee out of the panel.
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.
U.S. ASKS UKRAINE TO HALT ATTACKS ON RUSSIAN OIL REFINERIES: The U.S. has asked Ukraine to halt its attacks on Russian energy infrastructure and oil refining facilities, citing fears they could push oil prices higher.
The Financial Times reports that U.S. officials delivered “repeated” warnings to senior members of both Ukraine’s state security service, the SBU, as well as Ukrainian military intelligence unit GUR.
In warning Ukraine against the energy strikes, U.S. officials cited fears that Russia could retaliate by attacking or otherwise throttling other massive energy infrastructure projects, including the sprawling CPC oil pipeline, which runs through Kazakhstan and Russia and is used by Exxon and Chevron, among others.
Despite the Russian oil price cap and other bans enacted by the U.S. and its allies to limit Russia’s war profits, the country remains an important global oil supplier, and any action that takes its supplies off the market would upend global shipments and send commodities prices soaring. Read more from the Financial Times here.
SIXTEEN REPUBLICAN STATES SUE OVER LNG EXPORT PAUSE: A group of 16 Republican attorneys general filed a lawsuit yesterday over the Biden administration’s LNG export terminal pause, arguing that the administration lacks proper authority to unilaterally deny the permits, even on a temporary basis.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana and led by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who represent two states that play a major role in Gulf Coast oil and gas refining and shipping.
Plaintiffs argued in the filing that the Biden administration’s pause on new approvals is an overstep of DOE’s authority under the Natural Gas Act, which they argued requires the agency to “affirmatively show” gas projects are “inconsistent with the public interest” before denying the applications outright.
They also asserted that the pause is both politically motivated and harmful to their states, arguing that it “disregards statutory mandates, flouts the normal regulatory process” and “upends” states’ industries and economies to the tune of billions of dollars of potential investments. Read more on the lawsuit here.
ALL BUT ONE HOUSE REPUBLICAN VOTES TO CONDEMN CARBON TAX: All but one House Republican voted yesterday to disapprove of the idea of a carbon tax, indicating that the GOP remains staunchly opposed to carbon pricing
House lawmakers voted 222 to 196 to approve the resolution disapproving of the carbon tax, which was introduced by Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana earlier this week.
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania centrist who has authored legislation to impose a carbon tax, was the sole Republican to vote “no” on the measure, while 10 Democrats sided with Republicans to approve the nonbinding resolution.
Some context: A similar measure was brought to the House floor in 2018 and six Republicans joined Democrats in voting against it. The drop-off since then illustrates the shrinking support for carbon taxation within the House GOP, although it is worth noting that Republicans control fewer purple districts now in the chamber compared to 2018.
But some Republicans, including Sen. Mitt Romney, have also expressed tentative support for a carbon tax. More recently, some GOP senators have toyed with the idea of a carbon tariff, which would impose duties on goods from abroad that are associated with high carbon emissions.
Read more from Breanne here.
LAST ENERGY WEEK BILL COMES UP FOR A VOTE: The House voted today on H.R. 1023, the Cutting Green Corruption and Taxes Act, the last in a series of six “energy week” bills introduced by Republicans to highlight their disapproval of the Biden administration’s policies and present voters with alternatives ahead of the 2024 elections.
H.R. 1023, introduced by Rep. Gary Palmer of Alabama, would repeal section 134 of the Clean Air Act. That program is funded under the Inflation Reduction Act and allocates some $27 billion to reducing emissions in low-income U.S. communities.
Like the other GOP-led bills, neither the carbon tax measure nor Palmer’s bill to repeal the IRA provision will be brought to the floor in the Democrat-led Senate. But they do a good job of illustrating Republicans’ visions for energy leadership just the same… Read more on the bills here.
HICKENLOOPER AND PETERS INTRODUCE NEW PERMITTING REFORM BILL: Democrats Sen. John Hickenlooper of Colorado and Rep. Scott Peters of California introduced a new permitting reform bill yesterday in a bid to gin up support for a long-stalled priority and alleviate many of the bottlenecks holding up many interregional transmission lines that aid supply among grids in times of capacity shortages or strain.
The bill, dubbed the Streamlining Powerlines Essential to Electric Demand (SPEED) and Reliability Act, would allow individual transmission lines to be designated as “national interest high-impact transmission facilities,” thereby eliminating what the bill’s authors argue is a lengthy, duplicative EIS review process currently headed up by FERC, which conducts the siting authority reviews, and DOE, which oversees a separate review of corridor designations.
Supporters argue these reviews are essentially identical, contributing to the backlog in new transmission lines, particularly ones that can supply power to other states or regions.
Additionally, the bill calls for FERC to conduct a single environmental review for the national interest, high-impact transmission facilities rather than requiring multiple reviews. To qualify for the national interest designation, transmission lines would also be required to bring at 345 kilovolts of capacity or to increase transmission capacity by a minimum of 750 MW. Qualifying lines would also be required to cross at least two states, or one state and the continental shelf–ensuring that the projects brought for a quicker review would both add significant capacity to grids and have the ability to transport supplies to other regions.
Read the bill in full here.
TRADE GROUPS TAKE AIM AT 45V TAX CREDIT OVER EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS: A coalition of trade associations sent a letter to the Biden administration today urging it to take certain steps to better measure carbon intensity in the final version of the 45V clean hydrogen production tax credit.
In the letter, sent to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel, and White House clean energy advisor John Podesta, the groups cited concerns with the IRS’s currently proposed regulation for 45V, which requires clean hydrogen producers using natural gas as a feedstock to input a fixed, upstream emissions rate based on a national average.
Instead, the groups urge the Treasury Department to adjust its final regulations to move upstream emissions from “background” emissions to “foreground,” in order to get a more accurate accounting of the produced hydrogen’s carbon intensity.
“If the proposed regulation is finalized as written, clean hydrogen producers will have inaccurate lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions calculations,” the groups wrote, “which will disincentivize the reduction of upstream emissions— exactly the opposite of the intent of the original legislation.”
Signatories included the Clean Air Task Force, the Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy Association, the Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers.
RUNDOWN
Politico The one group Biden still needs to win over on electric vehicles
Canary Media Ohio greenlights massive solar, storage and agrivoltaics project
Reuters Water is disappearing from Mexico’s vital desert oasis Cuatro Cienegas
