Climate, Politics/Capitol Light©, is a service of The JBS Group and Civil Notion
                                                                      November 6, 2019                         

The big news of the week—kind of—was Trump’s starting the paperwork for getting the US out of the Paris Climate Accord (Accord). Although Trump announced his intentions in June 2017, the rules of the Accord prohibited any formal action before a few days ago. The US won’t actu-ally be off the Accord until November 4, 2020—a day after the next presidential election.

At one level, the Accord with or without the US has not achieved what had been hoped. Only a few nation-states have upped their voluntary greenhouse gas reduction pledges to the point needed to keep global temperatures from crossing the temperature threshold the science community warns of as being points of no return.

Trump’s withdrawal, however, sends the wrong message. It will be used by populist leaders in Brazil, central and eastern European nations, and elsewhere as an excuse for them to retract their country's support for the Accord.

The withdrawal diminishes US standing in climate negotiations, as well as its moral leadership position—not just now but into the future. As in so many other areas, Trump’s willingness just to walk away—with no regard for what’s left in his wake—is making the US an unreliable partner.

                          Climate, Politics/Capitol Light©, is a service of The JBS Group and Civil Notion
 
 
Volume 1                                                                  August 5, 2019                                                             Issue 21
 
Budget update. Both the House and Senate are out on their August recess. They are not scheduled to return until September 6th. Before leaving town, both chambers passed a two-year budget deal that was quickly signed by Trump. The legislation raises discretionary spending by more than $320 billion over the next two years and includes a nonbinding side agreement banning policy riders on appropriations bills.

Should the deal of no riders on appropriations bills be kept, it could be a major roadblock for the climate and clean energy communities. Riders are an often used means to attach measures the administration might otherwise oppose, e.g., anything climate related, onto measures it supports or can't afford to veto, e.g., immigration and defense.

The bill also raised the nation's debt ceiling through July 2021, averting a potential debt default until after the 2020 election. The attention of Capitol Hill lawmakers now turns to appropriations.

It’s been reported by E&E News that Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, volunteered to be "at the head of the line" when the chamber begins marking up and moving spending bills. He said his staff would be working throughout August recess to draft the measure.

Upon returning in September Congress will have less than two months to finish all 12 appropriations bills before the new fiscal year begins on October 1st. The House has passed 10 of its 12 bills, including the Energy-Water and Interior-EPA titles. The Senate has yet to introduce their first bill having waited until a budget deal was signed for their committee budget allocations. (Multiple sources)

                Climate, Politics/Capitol Light©, is a service of The JBS Group and Civil Notion
 
 
Volume 1                                                                     July 15, 2019                                                                 Issue 16
 
Just butt out. Federal agencies have until Aug. 1 to submit plans for eliminating at least a third of their advisory committees, according to new guidance from the Office of Management and Budget.

The instructions follow an executive order signed by President Trump last month, which instructed agencies to get rid of panels established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that have become obsolete or whose costs outweigh their benefits.

Agencies have until September 30 to reduce the total number of committees and can count panels eliminated as of January 2017 toward their one-third total. Committees established by Congress through statutory authority would not be up for consideration. (E &E News)

• Arguably, the federal government has too many advisory committees. The Trump administration—especially the White House—doesn’t like having people around that disagree with them. It’s fair to assume that the one-third reduction call is not particularly well-intentioned.
• The Trump administration has been consistent in its desire to rid itself of advisory committees, especially the ones that are heavy with members chosen by agencies during Obama’s administration. The appointments are usually staggered, so it is not unlikely to take several years to be rid of them.
• Pruitt purged EPA’s advisory committees. The purge didn’t go overly well as the replacements refused to be given the conclusions before they had a chance to discuss things. Trying that on an administration-wide scale would have proved problematic for the administration.

                      Climate, Politics/Capitol Light©, is a service of The JBS Group and Civil Notion.com

                                  
Volume 1                                                               June 19, 2019                                                                      Issue 10

 
Ace or Joker?  On Wednesday the EPA released its final Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule to reduce carbon emissions from individual power plants without setting limits on the sector's emissions. The Trump administration’s replacement for the Clean Power Plan redefines the "best system of emissions reductions" for existing power plants, directing operators to slash greenhouse gases by focusing solely on improving the efficiency of their facilities.

ACE is a behind the fence rule that is likely to keep aged coal plants on-line with the addition of emission controls. The climate rule does not cap greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, leaving it up to states to pick from a menu of technologies to improve power plant efficiency at the facility level.

The agency is providing states with a list of applicable emissions control technology they can use for compliance. Under the final rule, states cannot use carbon capture and storage technology or fuel switching from coal to a less high-emitting option to comply. Emissions trading, either between facilities or within facilities themselves, will also not be allowed.

The deadlines for states to provide plans for implementing the rule have been extended. States now have three years to submit plans to the agency, and EPA has a year to review them.

EPA says the new rule will reduce carbon emissions by as much as 35 percent below 2005 levels in 2030 — similar to projections for the Clean Power Plan — but most of that would occur from market forces absent any regulation. EPA, in a fact sheet accompanying the rule, projects ACE will cut carbon emissions 11 million tons by 2030, but that’s only about a 0.84 percent reduction compared to what would occur with no regulation.

An EPA official acknowledged “some” coal plants will increase emissions over their lifetime if they apply efficiency improvements and operate longer, rather than retire.

Environmentalists and Democratic states plan to sue the Trump administration, arguing the rule does not meaningfully fulfill the bare-bones requirement of the Clean Air Act since it would not significantly cut carbon emissions by keeping alive coal plants with efficiency improvements that would otherwise retire. (E&E News)

                  Climate, Politics/Capitol Light©, is a service of The JBS Group and Civil Notion.com
 
 
Volume 1                                                                      June 17, 2019                                                                Issue 9  
 

Petards were made for this. The Democratic Party may be the loser in the candidate debates as the calls for a focused debate have only grown stronger since Perez rejected Inslee's plea for a debate dedicated to the climate crisis. Dozens of DNC members are joining the call, and a group of activists protested outside the DNC's Washington, D.C., headquarters the other day, delivering a petition with more than 200,000 signatures pressing the issue.

The party's left wing is adding the climate debate issue to its grievances. Groups like Public Citizen, Women's March Global, NextGen America, and CPD Action — an arm of the Center for Popular Democracy — have joined Inslee in fighting for the debate. So have 14 other Democratic presidential candidates — including Senators (I-VT) and Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) — as well as several progressive House members.

Although Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA) supports Sanders for president, he said Inslee has an opportunity to take advantage of the progressive furor around the topic. He advised Inslee to take a page from Ronald Reagan, who in 1980 sponsored a Republican primary debate himself after federal officials ruled a debate sponsored by a newspaper would be an illegal campaign contribution. (E&E News)

Republicans are being poll-asked. Republicans risk losing young voters if they don't wake up to the reality that is climate change, warned pollster Frank Luntz  .

Luntz Global Partners — the firm led by the prominent GOP consultant — distributed a memo to every Republican on Capitol Hill arguing that public climate opinion has reached a "tipping point."

The report is based on the results of an online poll and focus groups Luntz Global conducted for the Climate Leadership Council. CLC is the carbon fee and dividend advocacy group funded by numerous corporate entities, including some oil companies.

The memo, which makes a case for the CLC's proposal, comes during a changing landscape for the Capitol Hill climate debate. Republicans are increasingly acknowledging climate science and voicing support for limited solutions.

"The 'political temperature' on climate change has shifted — perhaps permanently," the memo reads. "Three in four American voters want to see the government step in to limit carbon emissions — including a majority of Republicans (55 percent)." (E&E News)

• As political deals go, this is a big one. Luntz is well-respected. Whether respected by Trumplicans may be another matter. However, his findings will certainly have an impact on the thinking of establishment Republicans—especially who are up for re-election in 2020.
• Even if Republicans aren’t willing to listen, the Democrats will. Polls like this will confirm for Democrats that climate is a vulnerable spot in Republican armor.