El Sayed, who was the public health director in Detroit and Wayne County, has argued that climate change is a public health issue. 

In a 2019 op-ed, el Sayed wrote that he supported the Green New Deal not only because it addresses climate change, but also because he believed it would improve human health. He added that climate change alarmism of visuals of “melting glaciers and dying polar bears,” is compelling to some but not to him. 

“[A]fter being appointed health director of the City of Detroit, I realized that the forces that cause climate change are the same forces that poisoned the lungs of babies in my city,” he wrote. 

In the last primary debate, el Sayed vowed to take on fossil fuel companies like Marathon Petroleum and would aim to achieve 100% renewable energy. He noted that wildfires, which have hurt the state’s air quality, are happening more often because of carbon emissions from fossil fuels. 

“These wildfires are happening more often because it’s drier and hotter than it has been in the past,” el Sayed said. “It’s drier and hotter because we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our energy.”

As part of his other campaign priorities, he has called for codifying the Endangerment Finding to ensure that future administrations cannot repeal it. El Sayed has also vowed to strengthen the National Environmental Policy Act and to prioritize environmental justice. 

He has also promised to hold polluters accountable for PFAS contamination, which has been found throughout the environment including in water and soil.

NEW POLLING – SOME VOTERS SKEPTICAL OF CLIMATE LAWSUITS TARGETING BIG OIL: 

Early this fall, the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments in a case that could limit states and municipalities’ ability to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for the effects of climate change.

We’ve seen dozens of these lawsuits filed against oil majors, including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, BP, and more over the last few years. New polling obtained by Daily on Energy reveals that many Americans aren’t sure if the suits are the best way to tackle climate change, and are worried they could end up footing the bill. 

New findings: The polling was commissioned by America Leads Alliance, an energy advocacy group that has been fighting against the many of these climate lawsuits nationwide. Speaking with Democratic and Republican voters living in Dallas, Detroit, and Philadelphia, the group found that, while most view climate change as a problem, only 6% believed the lawsuits were the proper way to address climate change. 

Roughly 62% of those polled said they actually supported limiting lawsuits targeting operations that were legal at the time they occurred. 

“If it was legal at the time, you can’t go back and retroactively punish them,” said one participant, described as a swing male voter from Detroit. 

Another 62% said they would support the federal government limiting the ability of state and local governments to target past actions of companies if their operations were legal and permitted at the time they occurred. 

Part of this sentiment appears to stem from fears voters have over who will bear the cost of the lawsuits, as 73% of those polled said they believed taxpayers and consumers will foot the bill through higher energy prices and higher costs of goods and services. Even for those who said they supported the suits against Big Oil, around 39% said they would not be willing to pay for any increase in energy prices as a result. 

Pushback in Congress: The polling comes as Republicans in Congress have taken steps to block state and local governments from suing Big Oil over climate change. This spring, Rep. Harriet Hageman and Sen. Ted Cruz introduced the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act, which would protect oil majors and other energy firms from retroactive climate liability lawsuits, dismiss pending suits, and void state energy penalty laws. 

“It’s clear from this data that hardworking Americans are tired of radical environmental activists waging climate lawfare at their expense,” Hageman said in a statement to Daily on Energy.

What to watch: On Oct. 5, the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. The High Court has been asked to determine if federal law blocks local governments from suing fossil fuel companies for climate change-related damages. We’ll be following this case closely, so be sure to stick with us for more coverage as we get closer.

All the rest

E15 REMAINS IN COMMITTEE: The Senate Agriculture Committee failed to advance the farm bill, which included a measure for year-round sale of ethanol blends. 

Senate Democrats on the panel rejected the Republican-led farm bill due to disagreements over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP. 

Committee chair Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas plans to bring back the committee in September to vote on the bill. He added that he believes Democrats will get backlash from agriculture groups. 

“They’re going to be visiting with their constituents in rural America, farmers and local businesspeople. I think they’re very, very disappointed that we didn’t get something done,” Boozman said, according to Politico. 

THREE MORE OFFSHORE WIND PROJECTS SCRAPPED: German energy developer RWE has agreed to cancel three offshore wind leases it holds in U.S.waters after striking a $1.22 billion agreement with the Trump administration.

The RWE agreement is the fifth deal the administration has struck so far to cancel existing offshore wind leases in exchange for investing in natural gas. The company said this morning that it reached a “settlement” with the Department of the Interior and is relinquishing its offshore wind leases off the coasts of New York, California, and Louisiana. 

“After careful consideration, it was determined there is no path forward to permit these projects in the U.S. for the foreseeable future,” the company said. 

The deal brings the total amount spent by the Trump administration to cancel offshore wind leases to $3.92 billion. The administration has been using these effective buyout agreements since March, after federal courts dealt setbacks to its anti-wind-power agenda. 

Read more from Callie here. 

GOP SENATORS INTRODUCE A BILL TO REPEAL CALIFORNIA VEHICLE WAIVERS: Senate Republicans are seeking to overturn four California vehicle emission waivers that were granted during the Obama and Biden administrations. 

Republican Sens. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Eric Schmitt of Missouri, Jon Husted of Ohio, and Pete Ricketts of Nebraska introduced a joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act to overturn Environmental Protection Agency waivers granted to California. 

The senators are targeting California’s small off-road engine mandate, the Advanced Clean Cars I program, the 2013 Advanced Clean Car Program waiver, and the 2009 Greenhouse Gas waiver. 

The president last year signed three CRAs to repeal the state’s Advanced Clean Trucks rule, Advanced Clean Cars II rule, and heavy-duty vehicles’ nitrogen oxide rule. 

Republicans have argued that California emission regulations set a de facto national standard, as many states follow the state’s standards. The GOP also argues that its rules force consumers to transition to electric vehicles. 

WHERE PRICES STAND AS WE WAIT ON HORMUZ DEAL: It’s Thursday afternoon, and we still don’t have an agreement between the U.S. and Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. 

Iranian state news did publish a draft plan earlier today, though the proposal detailed extremely restrictive conditions for ships looking to pass through the narrow waterway, conditions that the U.S. very likely would not agree to. 

The draft, according to CNBC, would bar U.S. and Israeli ships from traveling through the strait and would block traffic of other nations that have harmed Iran until they provide compensation. 

Oil prices jumped slightly on the news, with Brent crude rising by 3.74% just before 3 p.m. EDT, to sell at $81.41 a barrel. West Texas Intermediate also rose 2.75% and was priced at $77.29 a barrel. 

Some analysts have suggested that if the U.S. and Iran are unable to reach an agreement in the coming days, it could leave a door open for escalations that have a stronger impact on the markets than what has been seen so far. 

Simon-Pete Massabni, head of business development at XS.com, said, “At best, the lack of consensus might keep us stuck in the gray zone of no peace and no war, while the United States might work on extracting whatever oil supplies it can from the region to limit the impact of disruption ahead of the midterm elections and buy time for military planning and buildup.”

WHAT’S GOING ON WITH ADVANCED NUCLEAR TODAY: Another advanced nuclear developer achieved criticality this week, bringing the total number of small modular reactors to hit the milestone to five. 

U.S. officials said this morning that, late yesterday evening, Oklo’s Groves test reactor achieved initial criticality. If you forgot, criticality is when a reactor is perfectly stable and its nuclear chain reactions are self-sustaining and able to produce energy.

It’s a vital step to demonstrate that the new advanced reactors – which have never been built in the U.S. before – are viable and safe. But there is still a long way to go for these reactors to be built on a commercial scale, as they will need to undergo a rigorous licensing process with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. For more on the other reactors that have hit criticality, check out Callie’s story from last month here. 

Plus, some fuel secured: Another advanced nuclear developer has struck a deal to secure the fuel it will need to power its small modular reactor – fuel that only one company in the U.S. currently makes. 

X-Energy announced that it signed a definitive agreement with Centrus to purchase High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium, the standard fuel needed for smaller, more advanced reactor designs. 

The company did not say how much it will be purchasing, but did say the fuel will go on to support “a portion of the initial fuel needs” for its plans to build out 11.5 gigawatts of commercial nuclear power. As a reminder, one gigawatt on average powers around 750,000 homes. 

CONOCOPHILLIPS CEO STEPS DOWN: The trend of Big Oil leadership shakeups has reached ConocoPhillips, as CEO Ryan Lance is stepping down at the end of the month. 

Lance has led the company since 2012 and is set to be replaced by current CFO Andy O’Brien. The Financial Times reported that O’Brien’s appointment suggests that the company will keep its focus on upstream production in the U.S. Permian Basin. 

TRUMP TO IMPOSE TARIFFS ON SOLAR MATERIALS: The Trump administration plans to impose tariffs and minimum prices on imported polysilicon, a material used in solar panels. 

Bloomberg reported that the administration in recent days has discussed tariffs of at least 15% and a range of minimum import prices that would apply to not just polysilicon but also solar-power equipment like wafers, photovoltaic cells, and solar modules. 

It added that the trade action could come as soon as today, according to people familiar with the matter. 

RUNDOWN 

Recharge News How Harry Potter almost derailed a major UK interconnector project

Wired Two Fossil Fuel Companies Are Driving the Data Center Boom

E&E News Why some Republicans want to bring nuclear waste home