Daily on Energy: What to watch for during Biden’s big climate week

How does the Biden administration message its new emissions reduction commitment, given it won’t have any policies yet to back it up? It seems likely the Biden administration will set a new emissions target (known as a Nationally Determined Contribution, or NDC, in Paris Agreement lingo) within the range of a 50% reduction by 2030. That target will surely earn praise from environmental groups, which say that level of emissions cuts is necessary to put the U.S. on track to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Yet an aggressive emissions target is little more than words on paper if the Biden administration doesn’t have policies to meet it and, more importantly, a plan to secure those policies politically. The Obama administration’s Paris Agreement target, for example, included the Clean Power Plan as a centerpiece — a policy that was subsequently put on pause by the Supreme Court and scrapped by the Trump administration.

Relatedly…does Biden propose any new policies in the run-up to the summit? Special climate envoy John Kerry said recently Biden is poised to issue an executive order directing agencies to require companies to disclose their emissions and climate-related risks.

A draft of the executive order reveals a far-reaching plan to address climate-related financial risks with regulatory efforts across several agencies, including the Treasury Department, the Labor Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Agriculture Department, according to a report from Politico. The plan would be the first concerted effort by the federal government to address financial risks from climate change, but executive orders are far from set-in-stone policy.

Does Biden secure any more aggressive climate commitments from other countries? The Biden administration has been racing in recent weeks to convince other nations, particularly large emitters, to unveil their own stronger climate targets at the summit next week. Kerry was in China for meetings earlier this week, attempting to convince its leaders to slash emissions more quickly than the country’s current target of beginning to reduce emissions before 2030 and reaching carbon neutrality by 2060.

The efforts to pressure big emitters such as China and India to make more expansive commitments has been to little avail so far, however.

Nonetheless, Biden is meeting today with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, who is expected to discuss “specific steps on climate that we believe will put Japan at the lead, in terms of an ambitious set of goals for 2030,” according to a senior administration official. (Could we see Japan step away from coal, perhaps?)

Lastly, how does U.S. business react to the details of the new U.S. NDC? Many in corporate America pressed Biden this week to set a 50% by 2030 target, but the policy details matter a lot.

For example, oil and gas companies have said they welcome direct federal regulation of the potent greenhouse gas methane. But will they embrace a strict new methane target if Biden includes one in his climate goal (as environmentalists have been pressing him to)?

We’ll be watching to see just how welcoming, or not, big business is of Biden’s climate commitment.

Welcome to Daily on Energy, written by Washington Examiner Energy and Environment Writers Josh Siegel (@SiegelScribe) and Abby Smith (@AbbySmithDC). Email [email protected] or [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.

TRILLION TREES IS BACK: GOP Rep. Bruce Westerman of Arkansas is reintroducing a revamped version of his “Trillion Trees Act” that would incentivize the planting of trees to absorb carbon.

Westerman, the only licensed forester in Congress, touts planting trees as the most “pragmatic, proactive approach” to removing planet-warming carbon from the atmosphere.

“It’s large-scale, it’s cost-effective, and there are a lot of positive environmental benefits of having healthy forests,” Westerman, the top Republican on the Natural Resources Committee, told Josh in an exclusive interview ahead of the bill’s release on Monday.

The Trillion Trees Act has more than 50 sponsors, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and one Democrat, Kurt Schrader of Oregon.

But other House Democrats argue that while nature-based solutions like planting trees is a key component of addressing climate change, it’s not as effective as policies that reduce fossil fuel use, given the emissions reduced from planting trees is a “one-time shot” compared to using zero-emission sources of energy in perpetuity.

“That argument had been a weak argument the whole time,” Westerman said. “This plan does more to proactively mitigate emissions than anything anybody else has come up with.”

HOUSE GOP PUSHES BIDEN TO SECURE CHINA CLIMATE COMMITMENT: Their bill, being introduced today, would push Biden to extract a more aggressive emissions reduction pledge from China before reengaging in the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

The legislation would also force the Biden administration to report to Congress before it submits to the United Nations a new U.S. target to reduce emissions under the Paris Agreement.

“We need to renegotiate the Paris Agreement so it is fair to the American worker and ensures global emissions will actually go down,” Rep. Garret Graves, the top Republican on the House climate committee and a lead sponsor of the bill, told Josh exclusively ahead of the bill’s release.

The bill is part of a broader House GOP climate agenda that the party is promoting to counter the Biden administration’s climate summit next week.

GOP PRESSURES BIDEN TO BACK QUICKER MINING APPROVALS: House Republicans are putting pressure on Democrats and Biden to back efforts to expand domestic production of critical minerals, saying Biden’s aggressive climate goals will increase U.S. reliance on China and other adversaries for the materials used in green technology.

GOP lawmakers on the House Natural Resources Committee are reintroducing legislation today that seeks to speed up permitting for the mining of critical minerals such as lithium, copper, and cobalt. The legislation would also bar the interior secretary from blocking critical minerals mining on federal lands and in federal waters without the approval of Congress.

The congressmen say they’re hopeful their bill can ultimately earn some Democratic support, especially as their colleagues across the aisle come to terms with the massive increase in lithium and other minerals that greening the grid and electrifying transportation will require.

They also hope to see the Biden administration engage on the critical minerals issue, pointing to an executive order Biden signed in February directing federal agencies to determine vulnerabilities in U.S. supply chains, including for critical minerals.

More in Abby’s story posted yesterday.

CARBON FEE COULD HALVE EMISSIONS BY 2035, REPORT SAYS: A new report from the Climate Leadership Council says the carbon tax proposal developed by former Republican Secretaries of State James Baker III and the late George Shultz would slash U.S. carbon emissions by 51% on its own.

When paired with other climate policies such as efficiency standards and nature-based investments, the carbon fee could help cut emissions in half or more even earlier, by 2030, according to the report. The emissions analysis was conducted by Resources for the Future and Yale University.

Implementing a carbon tax would also prompt reductions of at least 20% in other air pollutants, such as nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds, by 2035, the report finds.

What about the politics? The report comes on the heels of a lobbying push from oil companies and other business leaders this week, organized by the Climate Leadership Council, urging senators in both parties to back a carbon tax.

Most Republicans, however, are unlikely to back a carbon tax. So far, despite growing public support from business groups for the policy, only Sen. Mitt Romney has expressed serious interest in a carbon tax, but it’s possible a few other Republican senators could join him in flirting with the policy.

In remarks during a Senate Budget Committee hearing yesterday, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he met this week with the Climate Leadership Council and has spoken frequently with Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse about a price on carbon.

“What you do with the money is really important. If you rebate it to the consumer it lessens some of the fears that people have about increased cost at the gas tank, increased heating cost, running your business,” Graham said. He added he’d like to “start a discussion” with Whitehouse and business groups that back a carbon price to “find out what kind of rebate is fair that would get you the most political support.”

BANKS MAKE NEW COMMITMENTS TO ‘SUSTAINABLE FINANCE’: Citigroup and JPMorgan both announced new commitments yesterday to pour money into low-carbon businesses, next steps in the banks’ plans to reach net-zero financed emissions by 2050.

Citigroup plans to spend $1 trillion by 2030, with half of that dedicated to financing clean energy technologies such as renewable energy and clean transportation, according to a blog post yesterday from Ed Skyler, Citi’s head of global public affairs. The other half of the bank’s sustainable finance commitment will go to non-environmental issues, such as racial diversity, education, and healthcare.

JPMorgan is pledging $2.5 trillion by 2030 in sustainable finance, with $1 trillion of that directly to low-carbon businesses to help accelerate deployment of clean energy. The bank also noted it will provide an update on its efforts to align its finances with the Paris climate agreement next month.

OIL INDUSTRY TOUTS BENEFITS OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION: Oil industry trade groups are aiming to convince Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and the rest of Biden’s team at the agency that restricting domestic production of oil and gas would increase greenhouse gas emissions, diminish government revenue, and jeopardize energy security.

Restricting oil and gas development on federal lands “means only that we will likely import more oil and natural gas from countries with lower environmental standards and could revert back to coal for power generation, resulting in higher emissions domestically, precisely the opposite of the administration’s intended effect,” said Kevin O’Scannlain, vice president of upstream policy for the American Petroleum Institute, in comments to the Interior Department.

The agency is reviewing the federal oil and gas leasing program at the directive of Biden, who paused new leasing on federal lands in a sweeping climate executive order in his first days in office.

In separate comments, the American Exploration and Production Council said any changes to the oil and gas program or the royalty rates industry pays “should recognize the increased regulatory burden for companies who develop on federal lands versus nonfederal lands.” The group also argued the oil industry has not stockpiled federal leases in recent years, as the Biden administration and environmental groups have both claimed.

Environmental groups and Democrats have urged the Interior Department to reform the federal oil and gas program, however. The National Wildlife Federation, in its comments, urged the agency to stop offering leases in key wildlife habitat areas, culturally significant areas, or near recreation areas. The group also called for fiscal reforms, including higher bonding rates, and for more funding to restore lands damaged by energy development.

TRUMP EPA OFFICIALS DELAYED WARNINGS FOR CANCER-CAUSING CHEMICAL: Senior EPA leadership during the Trump administration delayed communicating potential health risks to people in Illinois who lived near facilities emitting ethylene oxide, which the EPA has determined can be carcinogenic when inhaled, according to a report yesterday from the agency’s watchdog.

In addition, the EPA Office of Inspector General report found that senior leaders in the EPA’s air office instructed career employees in Region 5 (the EPA region that includes Illinois and other Midwestern states) not to conduct inspections at facilities emitting the pollutant “unless invited by the state to conduct a joint inspection.” They were also instructed by senior leaders to limit air monitoring for ethylene oxide and to coordinate with EPA headquarters before conducting modeling of facility emissions, according to the report.

Region 5 managers also told the EPA watchdog that senior EPA leaders at the time didn’t want the agency to use “enforcement tools” to address ethylene oxide emissions. “These instructions hindered Region 5’s ability to effectively address ethylene oxide emissions in a timely manner,” the EPA watchdog said.

The Rundown

Reuters Biden’s climate duo of Kerry and McCarthy puts US back in global warming fight

Bloomberg White House considers methane-busting vow before climate summit

Politico World whiffs on Biden’s pleas for bold climate pledges

Washington Post Japan bets on hydrogen to lift its ambitious carbon-neutral plans

Wall Street Journal ‘A failure of Texas-size proportions’ — state struggles to overhaul its power market

Calendar

TUESDAY | APRIL 20

11 a.m. The Great Plains Institute will host the second virtual CO2NNECT event on carbon dioxide transport and storage, featuring remarks from Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk and Sen. Chris Coons.

12:30 p.m. The National Capital Area Chapter of the United States Association for Energy Economics’ will hold its annual Energy Policy Conference. The virtual event runs over two days.

WEDNESDAY | APRIL 21

6 p.m. Citizens’ Climate Lobby’s D.C. chapter will hold a virtual town hall meeting with Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton.