Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine and get Washington Briefing: politics and policy stories that will keep you up to date with what’s going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!
BIDEN KEEPS THE LEFT ON BOARD: Joe Biden isn’t likely to lose support on the left after drawing a contrast to President Trump in tackling surprise questioning about climate change in Tuesday night’s debate.
Biden walked the line between plugging his aggressive $2 trillion plan to reach net-zero emissions by midcentury and carbon-free power by 2035, without committing to the more sprawling Green New Deal. He never mentioned any interest in limiting natural gas or fracking, instead declaring (accurately, we’d argue) that “nobody’s going to build another coal-fired plant in America.”
Conservatives seemed surprised that Biden distanced himself from the Green New Deal, but he’s never endorsed it (as Josh reported last night).
It won’t hurt that Green New Deal co-author Rep. Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez seemed cool with Biden’s response.
Grading Trump: On the other side, Trump tried to show he cares about the environment without acknowledging a need to address climate change. He reluctantly admitted human emissions of fossil fuels “to an extent” are causing climate change.
But he warned that Obama-era climate rules would raise prices for power and cars, and the Paris agreement would have “destroyed our businesses.”
In trying to establish credibility on climate change, Trump plugged his support for planting trees. He claimed his administration has given “big incentives” to electric cars, despite a consistent push from his White House to pull the plug on federal tax credits for the vehicles, as Abby reported.
The big takeaway: We’d argue Trump didn’t do much to convince voters who might be skeptical of his environmental credentials, especially as he downplayed the effects of climate change on wildfires. Biden, meanwhile, avoided being drawn into having to discuss the costs of mandating emissions-reductions.
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.
A NEW WAY TO WIN REPUBLICANS SKEPTICAL OF CARBON PRICING? The Republican-backed Climate Leadership Council released a report Wednesday identifying in granular detail, sector by sector, how the U.S. economy has a lower carbon intensity compared to global competitors, including China.
The report authors argue this could be a new way to effectively communicate to Republicans who are skeptical about carbon pricing. Right now, there is no policy in place to reward U.S. companies for producing less carbon than competitors.
But imposing a carbon price with a border adjustment, or import tax on carbon-intensive goods, would change that, and force competitors to lower their emissions if they want a piece of the U.S. market.
“This study shows how America can act to create a competitive advantage for U.S. manufacturers and encourage other countries to do their part to reduce emissions,” said former GOP secretary of state George Shultz, a co-author of the Climate Leadership Council carbon tax and dividend plan. “It’s the type of policy we need to unite both the left and the right behind, a meaningful U.S. climate strategy,” Shultz told Josh.
Inside the numbers: The CLC report shows goods produced in the U.S. are 80% more carbon-efficient than the world average. The U.S. is three times more carbon-efficient than China and nearly four times that of India, meaning it can make the same or similar products, like oil and gas, steel, rubber, and plastics, while emitting less carbon.
What it means: If subject to a U.S. carbon import tax, producers of higher-emitting products overseas looking to export their goods here would pay a higher price compared to domestic manufacturers with a smaller pollution footprint facing a carbon price.
“There remains this false choice we have to select between climate ambition and U.S. competitiveness,” Greg Bertelsen, the new CEO of the Climate Leadership Council, told Josh. “What this data shows is, by not addressing climate change, we are leaving a huge U.S. economic opportunity on the table.”
MEANWHILE, CARBON PRICING HAS ITS MOMENT BEFORE FERC: Carbon pricing is not dead, Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse declared to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Wednesday morning to kick off the commission’s first-of-its-kind conference on the subject.
“I want to dispel the notion carbon pricing has had its demise politically,” Whitehouse said, ticking off the support of Republican-leaning analysts and economists, along with high-ranking legislators such as Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic whip.
The purpose of the all-day conference is to examine the implications of imposing carbon pricing in wholesale electricity markets.
A variety of experts testifying suggested a carbon pricing program in wholesale power markets could help unify differing policies in states that participate in organized markets, some of which are considering carbon pricing, and others that already have clean electricity mandates.
Debate over FERC’s role: Democratic FERC commissioner Richard Glick said the commission has no authority to block state programs intended to reduce emissions, a likely allusion to efforts by Republican members targeting state-issued clean energy subsidies. Republican chairman Neil Chatterjee acknowledged “diverse stakeholders have embraced carbon pricing as an important tool” that has the potential to “be an efficient, least-cost, and transparent way to reduce emissions.”
“A market-based solution is preferable to heavy-handed regulations,” Chatterjee said.
However, he argued FERC is not an “environmental regulator” with the authority to impose a specific policy, and said the commission’s main role is to ensure power markets operate efficiently, while ensuring reliable and affordable energy at “just and reasonable rates.”
ENERGY PIECES OF HOUSE GOP’S CHINA STRATEGY: House Republicans’ blueprint to counter China’s global influence includes increasing the domestic production of critical minerals and prioritizing U.S. development of nuclear energy, Abby reports in a story posted this morning.
As part of a sweeping report unveiled Wednesday, House Republicans’ China Task Force points to major vulnerabilities within the U.S. supply chain, particularly the critical minerals that are the foundation of everything from defense equipment to cellphone batteries, to renewable power. Republicans have recently been ramping up warnings that China dominates too much of the critical minerals market.
House Republicans are also aiming to counter global narratives that China is greening its economy. In their report, they argue the U.S. should highlight China’s “rampant environmental destruction,” including its status as the world’s largest carbon emitter.
“I think it is the most dangerous adversary we’ve ever faced in our history,” Rep. Michael Waltz, a member of the task force and U.S. Army veteran, told Abby of the Chinese Communist Party. “That’s mainly because of the size of their economy and how they are stealing their way to the top technologically.”
HMM…VOTERS IN GAS-PRODUCING AREAS CONFUSED BY BIDEN’S ENERGY STANCE: Biden is down 13 points to Trump in natural gas-producing counties of western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio, according to polling out Wednesday by ALG Research, as voters struggle to understand how the former vice president’s policies would affect them.
The survey of 500 likely voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania was conducted Aug. 26 through Sept. 1, with an oversampling (200 voters) in gas-producing counties.
The results make the case that Biden has an opportunity to better define himself to voters in fossil-fuel regions when he makes a campaign trip by train today through eastern Ohio and western Pennsylvania.
“Biden should more clearly explain his energy and climate views to pick up support,” said Paul Bledsoe, strategic adviser for the Progressive Policy Institute, which commissioned the poll.
At the moment, voters in these gas-producing counties don’t know where Biden stands on energy, with 22% saying he is pro-natural gas, 42% saying he is anti-natural gas, and 36% not sure. Unsurprisingly, a larger percentage, 65%, are sure Trump is pro-natural gas.
Voters like his ideas though: Yet a strong majority of voters polled, 76%, said they’d support expanding renewables and investing in EVs and energy efficient buildings, while still allowing for use of gas and nuclear, as Biden’s plan would do.
Across the two states, 45% percent say Biden will handle energy issues best, while 46% gave that advantage to Trump.
WHAT GOES UP, MUST COME DOWN: U.S. oil demand declined last week to 17.4 million barrels per day from 18.4 million barrels per day the week prior, the Energy Information Administration reported Wednesday in its Weekly Petroleum Status report.
Gasoline demand was flat week-to-week, and still down about 9% from the same period last year. Jet fuel consumption fell and continues to lag about 45% below last year’s mark.
EIA also reported a 2 million barrel decrease in commercial crude inventories, an easing of the market glut.
SHELL TO CUT JOBS AS IT RESTRUCTURES FOR NET-ZERO: The oil major announced Wednesday it would cut up to 9,000 jobs by the end of 2022 to save between $2 billion and $2.5 billion in costs.
“We have to be a simpler, more streamlined, more competitive organization that is more nimble and able to respond to customers,” Shell CEO Ben van Beurden said of the cuts. Shell’s restructuring, to become a net-zero energy business by 2050, will include a “more focused” traditional business, van Beurden added. Oil and gas exploration and production “will be run to ensure a strong flow of cash,” and the company will dramatically shrink and refocus its refining business, he said.
Shell’s announcement follows a similar move earlier this summer from BP, which plans to cut up to 10,000 jobs, many by the end of this year.
CALIFORNIA SOLAR POWER DIPS DUE TO WILDFIRE SMOKE: Solar energy generation on California’s grid declined nearly 30% in the first two weeks of September from its July average as wildfire smoke blanketed the state, the EIA said Wednesday.
The fine particulate matter (or PM2.5) in wildfire smoke blocks some sunlight from reaching solar panels, according to the EIA. California’s PM2.5 pollution reached its highest level on record on Sept. 15 as wildfires blazed in the state, the EIA said, citing data from California air officials.
Dips in California’s solar generation track with large wildfires breaking out in the state. The EIA found solar generation within the California Independent System Operator’s territory fell to 68 gigawatt hours in mid-August, recovered to 100 GWh by the end of August, before declining to as low as 50 GWh in mid-September as wildfires picked up again in the state.
VISTRA ANNOUNCES HUGE COAL RETIREMENTS: The Texas-based company said Tuesday it would retire its entire Midwest coal fleet by 2027 as it moves toward a cleaner portfolio. At seven units and more than 6,800 megawatts of coal-fired power, Vistra’s move is one of the largest-ever coal retirements in the U.S., the Sierra Club said.
Vistra blamed the “irreparably dysfunctional” Midwest electricity market and upcoming EPA requirements for making its coal fleet “economically challenged.” But the company also said it is strengthening its climate goals, setting a target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
As part of that push, Vistra unveiled its first-ever climate report, and it said it would break ground on six new solar projects and one battery storage project in Texas, totaling nearly 1,000 MW of clean energy.
The Rundown
New York Times Compact nuclear fusion reactor is ‘very likely to work,’ studies suggest
Reuters In Pennsylvania coal country, miners forgive Trump for failed revival
Bloomberg China’s coal industry unflinching over 2060 zero-carbon goal
Wall Street Journal NextEra Energy made takeover approach to Duke Energy
Financial Times Oil traders rush to invest billions into renewables
Calendar
WEDNESDAY | SEPT. 30
11:30 a.m. The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s environment subcommittee holds a virtual hearing titled, “Coping with Compound Crises: Extreme Weather, Social Injustice, and a Global Pandemic.”
12 p.m. The House Committee on Natural Resources holds a virtual hearing to mark up 19 bills.
THURSDAY | OCT. 1
9:30 a.m. The Atlantic Council holds on online event titled, “Securing the energy transition: Innovative cyber solutions for grid security.”
10 a.m. The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy will hold a virtual hearing titled, “Generating Equity: Improving Clean Energy Access and Affordability.”
12 p.m. The House Committee on Natural Resources holds a virtual legislative hearing on the Environmental Justice for All Act, H.R. 5986.
1 p.m. The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis holds a virtual hearing titled, “Creating a Climate Resilient America: Strengthening the U.S. Financial System and Expanding Economic Opportunity.”
