SIGN UP! If you’d like to continue receiving Washington Examiner’s Daily on Energy newsletter, SUBSCRIBE HERE: http://newsletters.washingtonexaminer.com/newsletter/daily-on-energy/

BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS ACCUSES TRUMP OF BRINGING THE GLOBE CLOSER TO ANNIHILATION: President Trump has put the Earth on a course toward annihilation by snubbing both a U.N. report on climate change last year and one sanctioned by Congress, according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which moved its Doomsday Clock closer to midnight on Thursday.

Susan Solomon, environmental studies professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said “four years is too long to wait” to address climate change, explaining that it cannot be addressed by waiting for a new president to be elected.

The threat to humanity from nuclear war and climate change moved the Cold War-era clock to two minutes to midnight, a symbol that actions by leaders is making the world less safe.

Former California Gov. Jerry Brown joined the scientists at a press conference on the clock’s update at the National Press Club in Washington.

Brown has joined the Bulletin after leaving public office, and vowed to make it his duty to make politicians accountable for their actions.

Brown said the “blindness and stupidity” of politicians when faced with the threat of climate change and nuclear war is like playing “Russian roulette” with citizens’ lives.

“It’s late and its getting later,” Brown said after announcing it is now two minutes to doomsday.

Brown said that anyone who wants to run for public office needs to address both climate change and the threat of nuclear war.

Brown held talks on Capitol Hill earlier this week to ask the GOP and Democrats to take serious steps to deescalate tensions with Russia, which spiked last week after Trump announced a new missile shield plan.

Welcome to Daily on Energy, written by Washington Examiner Energy and Environment Writers John Siciliano (@JohnDSiciliano) and 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.  

ENERGY INDUSTRY VOWS TO BE PART OF CLIMATE CHANGE ‘SOLUTION’ DURING ANNUAL FORUM: The utility and natural gas industries on Thursday vowed to be part of the climate change “solution,” but stopped short of endorsing comprehensive policies to address it, such as carbon pricing.

“Climate change is going to be a huge issue not only in the federal area but the states,”  said Thomas Kuhn, president of utility group Edison Electric Institute, during an appearance at at the 15th Annual State of the Energy Industry Forum in Washington. “Our industry is reducing emissions dramatically and will continue to be a part of the solution.”

But Kuhn said the U.S. has achieved emissions reductions this decade — before a slight increase projected for 2018 —  “largely through” technology innovation and said the issue should be addressed “without breaking the bank.”

Kuhn said one-third of its members’ electricity generation comes from zero-carbon sources, including nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar. Renewables wind and solar represent two-thirds of new additions, he said, as their costs have fallen dramatically.

“Things will be debated like cap and trade and carbon taxes, but the proof is in the pudding,” Kuhn said.

Kuhn also poked fun at progressives’ push for a “Green New Deal,” without dismissing it completely.

“What is the Green New Deal?” he said. “It is just being defined. It is obviously a movement to address the climate issue. We are going to be in the middle of the debate and welcome the debate.”

Mike Sommers, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, representing the oil and natural gas industry, similarly touted market forces for emissions reductions.

Asked about the significance of some oil and gas companies supporting forms of carbon pricing, Sommers was noncommittal about the industry’s stance.

“It is only because of the American energy revolution over the last 12 years that the U.S. has been able to meet the demands of a changing climate,” Sommers said, noting the impact of fuel switching from coal to natural gas, which emits half the carbon. “Our members are meeting that challenge. Our members are stepping up through innovation and the policy arena.”

GREENS WANT 2020 DEMS TO GO BEYOND VAGUE GREEN NEW DEAL SUPPORT: Progressives and environmentalists hoping to push climate change to the top of the 2020 agenda are pressuring Democratic candidates not to settle for platitudes about a Green New Deal, and instead propose specific plans for eliminating carbon emissions.

“Having presidential candidates say they are supportive of the concept of doing something like the Green New Deal is amazing, but it’s not sufficient,” said Saikat Chakrabarti, chief of staff to freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told Josh

Ocasio-Cortez and other freshmen progressives have had success getting Democratic candidates to commit to the as-yet-undefined Green New Deal, which would mandate a transition in the U.S. to entirely renewable energy. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., have all offered some level of support for the Green New Deal.

But simple support is not enough. Environmental groups expect candidates to quickly differentiate themselves.

“You can’t win the Democratic nomination for president in 2020 without a climate plan and without an ability to talk about what your priorities are, and what the policies are behind that,” Joe Bonfiglio, president of EDF Action, the advocacy arm of the Environmental Defense Fund, told Josh.

Overshadowing real policy debate: Democratic advisers fear the candidates may struggle to separate preferred policies from the idealistic ambitions of the Green New Deal, which focuses on mandates over market mechanisms, such as carbon pricing, and also socially progressive policies, such as a jobs guarantee and nationalized healthcare.

“It will be a challenge to get beyond the fantasy goals of the Green New deal to specific policy proposals,” Paul Bledsoe, a former climate change adviser to former President Bill Clinton, told Josh.

Read more of Josh’s story here.

BIPARTISAN PAIR TO REINTRODUCE CARBON TAX BILL: Reps. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., and Francis Rooney, R-Fla., plan to revive a carbon tax bill Thursday, Josh has learned.

The pair, who co-lead the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, plan to reintroduce legislation, first unveiled in November, that was the first bipartisan carbon tax bill in nearly a decade. The reintroduction is necessary since it’s a new session of Congress.

The bill is intended as a test for a carbon-tax-and-dividend model that distributes all of the revenue as a monthly rebate to American households, protecting them from higher energy costs.

“I am supportive of a carbon fee as a non-regulatory, revenue-neutral and market-driven incentive to move toward natural gas and away from coal, and to support emerging alternate sources of energy,” Rooney told Josh. “This bill provides a method of ensuring that any fees are rebated back to the public.”

What the bill does: It would impose a tax of $15 per ton of carbon dioxide in 2019, a relatively low starting number. But the price would increase $10 each year, a rapid pace, rising to nearly $100 per ton by 2030, and potentially higher if the emissions targets set in the bill are not met.

It levels the carbon tax primarily 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. The legislation exempts agricultural fuels. The new version of the bill also exempts fuel used by the military.

The state of play: Congress is unlikely to pass carbon pricing legislation anytime soon because of strong resistance from conservatives who view any form of carbon pricing as a tax increase, as well as an emerging preference among progressives for government mandates proposed in the Green New Deal.

US ON TRAJECTORY TO BECOME NET ENERGY EXPORTER IN ELECTION YEAR: The U.S. will become a net energy exporter across multiple energy commodities as the presidential election gears up, the Energy Information Administration said Thursday, thanks to slow growth in U.S. domestic energy consumption, coupled with large expansions of oil, natural gas and other fossil energy products.

Natural gas liquids make a splash: Of the fossil fuels, natural gas and natural gas liquids, like the valuable chemical precursor ethane, will see the highest production growth going into the election year, the agency said.  

Natural gas liquids will account for almost one-third of cumulative U.S. liquids production during the projection period.

Uptick in crude oil exports: The U.S. will become a crude oil net exporter by the fourth quarter, although EIA says there is some room for it to happen sooner.

Coal still hanging on through 2050: The agency did not model Trump’s new coal rules, like the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which would make it easier for coal plants to make upgrades to improve efficiency

Coal continues to hang onto a surprising amount of market share through 2050 in providing U.S. electricity, although falling 1.5 percent from 2019.

But natural gas becomes the dominant power producer in 2020 and beyond.

Wind and solar supplant nuclear power in 2020: Renewables look to surpass nuclear power beginning in 2020, taking a growing share of the electric grid market over the next three decades. The agency also says that electricity prices will fall during that time period.

Renewables see their tax credits fall away significantly in 2020, but stay competitive through improved efficiency and cost reductions.

RUBIO WARNS TRUMP AGAINST OIL SANCTIONS ON VENEZUELA: Sen. Marco Rubio, R, Fla., on Thursday expressed wariness about the possibility the Trump administration could impose oil sanctions on Venezuela.

The Trump administration on Wednesday recognized the oil-rich country’s opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s official head of state, in a swipe at leftist authoritarian President Nicolás Maduro.

The move is reviving the possibility that Trump could sanction Venezuela crude exports, which the administration has flirted with doing in the past.

Oil production has crashed in Venezuela in recent years because of political turmoil. But Rubio noted that refiners in Texas and Louisiana, which use large amounts of Venezuela’s heavy crude, would suffer from limits on Venezuela’s oil exports, and struggle to find alternative supplies.

How real is the sanctions threat?: Dan Eberhart, CEO of the oil services firm Canary and a Trump donor, told us the threat of oil sanctions is real, especially if the military turns on Maduro.

“If they stick with Maduro and he cracks down on protesters and jails the interim president, expect Trump to unleash the toughest possible oil sanctions,” Eberhart said. “That would include ban on imports of Venezuelan oil. Low prices and oversupplied market make this more possible.”

A senior administration official, asked Wednesday by reporters about the possibility of oil sanctions, said: “When we say all options on the table, it means all options are on the table.”

RUNDOWN

Politico White House eyes energy push as Russia strategy

Reuters US copper projects gain steam thanks to electric vehicle trend

Washington Post Civil penalties for polluters dropped dramatically in Trump’s first two years, analysis shows

Bloomberg PG&E says $150 billion could be price of a judge’s fire plan