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/

TRUMP CAN STILL MEET OBAMA’S COAL POLLUTION TARGET, EVEN AFTER GUTTING SIGNATURE RULE, BUT CLIMATE PROGRESS FAR OFF: A key justification the Trump administration provided in moving Tuesday to gut President Barack Obama’s signature climate change initiative targeting coal plants is the fact that the power market is already naturally becoming cleaner.

The U.S. has already achieved much of the goals Obama set out. His 2015 Clean Power Plan, which was never implemented because of a Supreme Court stay, required states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The country has now met 28 percent of that goal, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, thanks to cheaper natural gas and renewables that are replacing coal — the energy source that produces the most carbon pollution.

We can still get there: Even with a more limited scope focused on giving power to states, the EPA’s rule will see power sector emissions falling 33 to 34 percent below 2005 levels, according to the Trump administration’s projections — meeting the target that Obama set.

“The market forces that are pushing power generators to move toward gas and renewables are still in place,” Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy at the Niskanen Center, a free market think tank, told Josh. “Provided that gas prices stay low and renewables continue to come down in cost, I don’t know that we will realize a big difference in emissions.”

But there’s more to the story: Environmentalists and experts say Obama intended the Clean Power Plan to be just the first step in a broader policy to prevent the worst impacts of climate change that is also affected by emissions from other sources, such as transportation.

The Clean Power Plan was a key component of the U.S. commitment to the Paris climate agreement that President Trump has rejected, because power sector emissions account for roughly one-third of America’s overall emissions.

Yet power sector emissions are only one piece if the U.S. was to meet its promise under the Paris deal to lower the nation’s greenhouse-gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

Reaching that level would help the world achieve the overarching goal of the Paris Agreement, limiting global warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature at which many scientists say the world would see irreversible effects of climate change.

Those climate goals are out-of-reach: Climate experts say the U.S. is far away from reaching that goal, with or without the Clean Power Plan.

“Even with power sector progress, emissions are not declining at a pace fast enough to lead us to the Paris economy-wide targets,” Noah Kaufman, an economist at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, told Josh.

Trump is missing a path to get there: To reach the target level, the U.S. would need to both increase the pace of carbon emissions reduction in the power sector, and also cut pollution from transportation, which has proven to be a more difficult task.

“The new rule is a real missed opportunity to take advantage of the recent decline in renewables and natural gas prices and accelerate the pace of reductions in the power sector in a way that would close that 2025 emissions gap,” Trevor Houser, a researcher with the independent Rhodium Group, told Josh.

Welcome to Daily on Energy, compiled 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.  

SENATORS PUSH FERC TO CLEAR BACKLOG OF NATURAL GAS EXPORT PLANTS: Senators are growing impatient with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s struggle to clear a backlog of applications for natural gas export facilities that are key to achieving Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda.

A group of Republican senators led by Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, sent a letter Tuesday to FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre urging the commission to approve permits for liquified natural gas export facilities “in a timely manner.”

Here’s the problem: The U.S. has only two facilities along the coasts to export liquefied natural gas, or LNG, the chilled, liquid form that gas must be converted to for it to be shipped in giant tanker vessels across seas.

Another four are set to enter service by the end of 2019, and four more have earned regulatory approval.

But more than a dozen are awaiting permitting approval from FERC, a backlog that the panel is struggling to meet because of a manpower shortage, and other issues. McIntyre testified to Congress that LNG export applications are becoming “larger, more complex, and more expensive.”

It’s been three years since FERC approved a new LNG plant.

TRUMP USES DRAMATIC VISION OF EXPLODING WINDMILLS TO TOUT COAL’S RELIABILITY: Coal was a big part of Trump’s Tuesday night visit to coal country.

“We love clean beautiful, West Virginia coal,” Trump said at a rally in the Mountaineer State, flanked by supporters holding signs that read, “Trump Digs Coal.”

“That’s indestructible stuff,” Trump continued, describing coal as more resilient and reliable than natural gas, wind farms, and solar panels.

“In times of war, in times of conflict, you can blow up those windmills, they fall down real quick,” Trump said. “You can blow up those pipelines … you’re not going to fix them too fast.”

“You can do a lot of things to those solar panels,” he added. “But you know what you can’t hurt? Coal. You can do whatever you want to coal.”

It is fair to say that the resilience of wind farms and solar panels have not been tested during times of war, as Trump described. Hurricanes and severe weather is another story. For example, Puerto Rico’s solar and wind power plants were severely damaged during last year’s hurricane season.

And coal plants plants are not indestructible: As for coal surviving in times of conflict, the U.S. bomber fleet during World War II decimated Germany’s coal plants that were used to produce synthetic diesel fuel, according to the Energy Department’s website. “When Allied bombing of the German synfuels plants began taking its toll in late 1944 and early 1945, the entire Nazi war machine began grinding to a halt,” according to the agency led by Energy Secretary Rick Perry.  

Could Trump learn from Carter on coal? It was actually a Democratic president, Jimmy Carter, who did the biggest favor for coal 40 years ago. Carter ordered power plants to switch to coal after the Mideast oil embargo. About a fifth of U.S. power plants at the time were running on oil, not coal. Coal had been seen as an alternative fuel for electricity production to keep the supply of oil high for use by the transportation sector.  

TRUMP’S ‘MILITARY’ VISION FOR COAL: Trump said Tuesday night that the administration is working on “a military plan that’s going to be something very special” for coal.

It wasn’t immediately clear what the president meant by a military plan, although the administration has been examining ways to save coal plants from retiring by making sure they remain operational as a matter of national security.

Perry has been directed by Trump to develop a list of policy recommendations to save coal power plants from retiring prematurely. But Trump saying it is a “military plan” raises questions over whether the Department of Defense will be involved. The White House did not respond to emails to explain what the president specifically meant in his comments.

What the critics say: Dave Anderson, policy and comms chief at the Energy and Policy Institute, saw the remarks “as Trump attempting to communicate a plan he doesn’t really understand, beyond the basic concept.”

Anderson’s group calls itself a watchdog that looks to expose myths perpetuated by the fossil fuel industry about renewables. He believes Trump was making a passing reference to the plan Trump ordered Perry to develop. Anderson told John via Twitter that the plan is a long shot.

“The Trump administration seems to believe that reframing its efforts to bail out the coal industry as a matter of national security will work, even though last year’s attempt by Rick Perry to subsidize ‘fuel secure’ power plants failed,” Anderson said.

FERC rejected Perry’s 2017 proposal to enact market-based incentives for coal and nuclear plants.

IS ENERGY HOLDING UP NAFTA DEAL? Energy policy may be a remaining stumbling block for the U.S., Mexico, and Canada to reach a deal to revamp the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Mexico’s incoming and outgoing administrations are split on whether the new NAFTA should include an energy chapter, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

What’s the rub: The incoming government of leftist president-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador does not want energy to be part of the deal, but the current administration, along with the U.S. and Canada, want it to be.

The original 1994 NAFTA did not have an energy component because Mexico at the time had a nationalized energy system. But in 2013, the government of President Enrique Peña Nieto opened the energy system to foreign investment.

Why it matters: It’s unclear if López Obrador will look to roll back the constitutional reforms, but he may prevent new auctions to foreigners.

A deal including energy is important because it would continue momentum that has seen Mexico import more U.S. natural gas by pipeline than any other country.

FERC GURU TO LEAD ENERGY GROUP OPPOSING TRUMP’S COAL BAILOUT:

A switch up is occurring in trade group circles when it comes to covering FERC’s sphere of influence.

Devin Hartman, the free-market R Street Institute’s electricity policy director, will be taking over operations at the Electricity Consumers Resource Council, succeeding current FERC expert and president of the group, John P. Hughes, who is retiring at the end of the year.

Hartman’s background: Hartman, before joining R Street, was an energy industry analyst at FERC. He also served as a senior analyst at the state level with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

A critical time for the utility sector: Hartman will be taking over the helm of the trade group, which represents large industrial electricity users from refineries to steel mills, during a critical time.

ELCON has been part of a broad industrial coalition opposing Trump’s push to save coal and nuclear plants through a market-based system of incentives. The industry coalition wants the markets that FERC oversees to continue to support competition based on the cost of a resource, not on subsidization, which would harm and distort electricity markets.

Market defender: Hughes said in a statement that Harman is a good fit “for defending the competitive power markets that we worked so hard to create and maintain.”

Hartman said the electricity sector is “in an unprecedented era of technological change,” and he is “looking forward to ensuring the voices of large industrial users of electricity are at the forefront of that transformation.”

FEDERAL COURT RULES OBAMA COAL ASH RULE WAS NOT TOUGH ENOUGH: A federal court on Tuesday ruled that an Obama administration rule managing how utilities dispose of toxic coal ash was too weak.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out portions of the 2015 EPA rule, saying they failed to lower the “significant risk” of coal ash.

“[EPA] does not address the identified health and environmental harms documented in the record. … Moreover, the EPA has not shown that harmful leaks will be promptly detected; that, once detected, they will be promptly stopped; or that contamination, once it occurs, can be remedied,” the court ruling said.

It’s hard to measure the ruling’s impact: Trump’s EPA is seeking changes to the Obama rule, and will likely move to weaken it.

But environmentalists say the court ruling will constrain the Trump administration.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for the people who are exposed to toxic waste from coal-fired power plants,” said Lisa Evans, an Earthjustice attorney who helped file the lawsuit. “The court’s decision limits the Trump Administration’s ability to further roll back these vital health protections by recognizing the danger that these dumps already pose.”

What was in the Obama rule: The Obama-era rule imposed new standards on coal ash disposal sites by increasing inspection and monitoring levels, and requiring power plants to install liners in new waste pits to prevent leaking that could threaten nearby drinking water supplies. Companies also had to conduct water quality tests.

In September, former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced he would reconsider the Obama rule. The 2015 rule was never implemented due to court challenges.

US SANCTIONS RUSSIAN COMPANIES FOR OIL SMUGGLING TO NORTH KOREA: The Trump administration blacklisted a pair of Russian companies for smuggling oil to North Korea on Tuesday, stepping up efforts to implement international sanctions on the regime.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin authorized the sanctioning of two shipping companies and six vessels based in Vladivostok, a major Russian port city just north of the Korean peninsula, in order to punish and deter “ship-to-ship transfers” of oil products. U.S. officials believe that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, aided by such smuggling, has breached the cap on oil imports mandated by a recent United Nations Security Council resolution.

Mnuchin’s move buttresses Ambassador Nikki Haley’s July report to the United Nations that U.S. officials had uncovered 89 instances of the ship-to-ship transfers, which had provided North Korea with far more oil than permitted by international sanctions.

COMMITTEE CONSIDERS BILL TO LIMIT LITIGATION OVER FORESTRY PROJECTS: A subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is holding a hearing Wednesday on a GOP bill that would aim to limit litigation that stops forestry projects meant to protect against wildfires.

How it would work: The bill by Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., would establish a pilot program through which the head of the Forest Service could use an arbitration process rather than judicial review to resolve disputes of forest management projects, which involve the removal of trees and vegetation in forests to take away fuel for fires.

“Obstructionist litigation continues to have a detrimental impact on companies that work to harvest timber and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire,” said Katie Schoettler, a spokeswoman for Daines. “Senator Daines has introduced legislation that will allow for disputes to be resolved through arbitration rather than the courtroom, in a legitimate and more timely manner.”

There’s more to the problem: Democrats and some experts say a lack of funding is the main issue preventing more forest management projects, not environmental hurdles.

They also say focusing on forest management must be coupled with an acknowledgement that climate change is making fires more destructive because of hotter, drier conditions.

RUNDOWN

Wall Street Journal The next big bet in fracking: water

Bloomberg Merkel allies pressure to to keep coal plants running

New York Times Betting Utah sands will be the next great oil source

Washington Post Virginia regulators consider revoking permits for two major gas pipelines, but settle for stricter enforcement