Vice President Kamala Harris endorsed liberal positions on climate and energy before joining the Democratic ticket with President Joe Biden in 2020, stances that will now receive much greater scrutiny as she pursues the presidency with Biden’s endorsement.

While her stances on energy have closely aligned with Biden during their first term, her past record on fossil fuels and climate is to the left of Biden’s positioning and could serve as a hurdle to wooing fossil fuel-friendly swing states that could determine the November elections.

During her 2019 presidential run, Harris called for a ban on fracking, and was one of the original sponsors of the Green New Deal resolution – positions that could come back to bite her in, for instance, the battleground state of Pennsylvania, where natural gas production is a major industry. 

Energy and inflation are topics that were expected to have significance heading into November – but will play an even greater role now that the Democratic ticket has undergone upheaval. 

On a grand scale, Harris has worked with Biden to enact provisions of the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act passed by Democrats, which provided for unprecedented federal subsidies for clean energy technologies — hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth. 

However, during her brief 2019 presidential run before joining the Biden ticket, Harris said during a CNN town hall that she was “in favor of banning fracking” – a position that she said after becoming Biden’s runningmate did not represent Biden’s platform. Biden ran on halting fracking on federal lands, which is a small subset of overall fracking. In office, the Biden administration has slowed leasing for drilling on federal lands, but has not ended it altogether.

On the campaign trail, Harris also committed to supporting a carbon tax, and called for the end of government subsidies for the fossil fuels industry. Harris’ plan specifically called for the federal government to pass a bill she proposed with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), the Climate Equity Act, which would require the government to consider the effects of any environmental legislation or regulation on low-income communities. She also vowed to ensure corporations to “appropriately assess and disclose risks from climate change.”

Her 2019 platform also outlines climate goals that were more aggressive than the current administration’s – seeking to create a clean energy economy by 2045, requiring new buses, heavy duty vehicles and vehicle fleets to be zero-emission by 2030 and all vehicles to be 100% zero-emission by 2035. 

Harris also stated that she would utilize the Antiquities Act – a law that allows for the president the authority to create national monuments from federal lands – to protect 30% of the nation’s lands by 2030. She also vowed to phase out fossil fuel development on public lands and implement policies that would allow for the lands to be net carbon sinks by 2030.

During her time in the Senate, Harris was one of the original co-sponsors of a Green New Deal resolution – a measure that would call for the federal government to divest from fossil fuels and curb greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. It also promoted for boosting jobs in clean energy industries, investing in infrastructure, securing clean air and water, and “promoting justice and equality.” The resolution, though, was merely a messaging measure and would not have changed law.

Biden, in contrast, distanced himself from the Green New Deal. During his first presidential debate, Biden explicitly stated that the Green New Deal “is not my plan.” Republicans have frequently used the Green New Deal to campaign against Democrats as promoting radical climate ideas.

During her own presidential campaign, Harris touted her work as an attorney general in California, stating that she “took on oil companies that were polluting our environment. She also launched an investigation into whether Exxon Mobil lied to the public and shareholders about its contributions to climate change, and worked on indictments against Plains All American Pipeline over a 2015 oil spill.

Several green groups came out in support of Biden’s decision to drop out of the race on Sunday, such as Evergreen Action, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Environmental Defense Fund.

“From establishing one of the first environmental justice units in the country when she was the district attorney of San Francisco, to taking on Big Oil in the courts as California Attorney General, to introducing visionary legislation including the Climate Equity Act and Clean School Bus Act in the Senate, Vice President Harris has fought to hold polluters accountable and deliver for the hardest-hit communities her entire career,” Evergreen Action Executive Director Lena Moffitt said in a statement. “We are confident that she is ready to carry forward President Biden’s historic legacy and set a new high bar for climate ambition in America.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Although Harris could take more centrist stances in her campaign this time, her past positions could serve as fodder for Republican attacks as she looks to defeat former President Donald Trump – who favors greater fossil fuel production, has called climate change a “hoax,” and has said he will roll back many of the IRA’s provisions.

2024-07-22 11:37:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolicy%2Fenergy-and-environment%2F3093143%2Fharriss-record-on-climate-and-energy-the-green-new-deal-fracking-bans-and-more%2F?w=600&h=450, Vice President Kamala Harris endorsed liberal positions on climate and energy before joining the Democratic ticket with President Joe Biden in 2020, stances that will now receive much greater scrutiny as she pursues the presidency with Biden’s endorsement. While her stances on energy have closely aligned with Biden during their first term, her past record,

Vice President Kamala Harris endorsed liberal positions on climate and energy before joining the Democratic ticket with President Joe Biden in 2020, stances that will now receive much greater scrutiny as she pursues the presidency with Biden’s endorsement.

While her stances on energy have closely aligned with Biden during their first term, her past record on fossil fuels and climate is to the left of Biden’s positioning and could serve as a hurdle to wooing fossil fuel-friendly swing states that could determine the November elections.

During her 2019 presidential run, Harris called for a ban on fracking, and was one of the original sponsors of the Green New Deal resolution – positions that could come back to bite her in, for instance, the battleground state of Pennsylvania, where natural gas production is a major industry. 

Energy and inflation are topics that were expected to have significance heading into November – but will play an even greater role now that the Democratic ticket has undergone upheaval. 

On a grand scale, Harris has worked with Biden to enact provisions of the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act passed by Democrats, which provided for unprecedented federal subsidies for clean energy technologies — hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth. 

However, during her brief 2019 presidential run before joining the Biden ticket, Harris said during a CNN town hall that she was “in favor of banning fracking” – a position that she said after becoming Biden’s runningmate did not represent Biden’s platform. Biden ran on halting fracking on federal lands, which is a small subset of overall fracking. In office, the Biden administration has slowed leasing for drilling on federal lands, but has not ended it altogether.

On the campaign trail, Harris also committed to supporting a carbon tax, and called for the end of government subsidies for the fossil fuels industry. Harris’ plan specifically called for the federal government to pass a bill she proposed with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), the Climate Equity Act, which would require the government to consider the effects of any environmental legislation or regulation on low-income communities. She also vowed to ensure corporations to “appropriately assess and disclose risks from climate change.”

Her 2019 platform also outlines climate goals that were more aggressive than the current administration’s – seeking to create a clean energy economy by 2045, requiring new buses, heavy duty vehicles and vehicle fleets to be zero-emission by 2030 and all vehicles to be 100% zero-emission by 2035. 

Harris also stated that she would utilize the Antiquities Act – a law that allows for the president the authority to create national monuments from federal lands – to protect 30% of the nation’s lands by 2030. She also vowed to phase out fossil fuel development on public lands and implement policies that would allow for the lands to be net carbon sinks by 2030.

During her time in the Senate, Harris was one of the original co-sponsors of a Green New Deal resolution – a measure that would call for the federal government to divest from fossil fuels and curb greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. It also promoted for boosting jobs in clean energy industries, investing in infrastructure, securing clean air and water, and “promoting justice and equality.” The resolution, though, was merely a messaging measure and would not have changed law.

Biden, in contrast, distanced himself from the Green New Deal. During his first presidential debate, Biden explicitly stated that the Green New Deal “is not my plan.” Republicans have frequently used the Green New Deal to campaign against Democrats as promoting radical climate ideas.

During her own presidential campaign, Harris touted her work as an attorney general in California, stating that she “took on oil companies that were polluting our environment. She also launched an investigation into whether Exxon Mobil lied to the public and shareholders about its contributions to climate change, and worked on indictments against Plains All American Pipeline over a 2015 oil spill.

Several green groups came out in support of Biden’s decision to drop out of the race on Sunday, such as Evergreen Action, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Environmental Defense Fund.

“From establishing one of the first environmental justice units in the country when she was the district attorney of San Francisco, to taking on Big Oil in the courts as California Attorney General, to introducing visionary legislation including the Climate Equity Act and Clean School Bus Act in the Senate, Vice President Harris has fought to hold polluters accountable and deliver for the hardest-hit communities her entire career,” Evergreen Action Executive Director Lena Moffitt said in a statement. “We are confident that she is ready to carry forward President Biden’s historic legacy and set a new high bar for climate ambition in America.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Although Harris could take more centrist stances in her campaign this time, her past positions could serve as fodder for Republican attacks as she looks to defeat former President Donald Trump – who favors greater fossil fuel production, has called climate change a “hoax,” and has said he will roll back many of the IRA’s provisions.

, Vice President Kamala Harris endorsed liberal positions on climate and energy before joining the Democratic ticket with President Joe Biden in 2020, stances that will now receive much greater scrutiny as she pursues the presidency with Biden’s endorsement. While her stances on energy have closely aligned with Biden during their first term, her past record on fossil fuels and climate is to the left of Biden’s positioning and could serve as a hurdle to wooing fossil fuel-friendly swing states that could determine the November elections. During her 2019 presidential run, Harris called for a ban on fracking, and was one of the original sponsors of the Green New Deal resolution – positions that could come back to bite her in, for instance, the battleground state of Pennsylvania, where natural gas production is a major industry.  Energy and inflation are topics that were expected to have significance heading into November – but will play an even greater role now that the Democratic ticket has undergone upheaval.  On a grand scale, Harris has worked with Biden to enact provisions of the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act passed by Democrats, which provided for unprecedented federal subsidies for clean energy technologies — hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth.  However, during her brief 2019 presidential run before joining the Biden ticket, Harris said during a CNN town hall that she was “in favor of banning fracking” – a position that she said after becoming Biden’s runningmate did not represent Biden’s platform. Biden ran on halting fracking on federal lands, which is a small subset of overall fracking. In office, the Biden administration has slowed leasing for drilling on federal lands, but has not ended it altogether. On the campaign trail, Harris also committed to supporting a carbon tax, and called for the end of government subsidies for the fossil fuels industry. Harris’ plan specifically called for the federal government to pass a bill she proposed with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), the Climate Equity Act, which would require the government to consider the effects of any environmental legislation or regulation on low-income communities. She also vowed to ensure corporations to “appropriately assess and disclose risks from climate change.” Her 2019 platform also outlines climate goals that were more aggressive than the current administration’s – seeking to create a clean energy economy by 2045, requiring new buses, heavy duty vehicles and vehicle fleets to be zero-emission by 2030 and all vehicles to be 100% zero-emission by 2035.  Harris also stated that she would utilize the Antiquities Act – a law that allows for the president the authority to create national monuments from federal lands – to protect 30% of the nation’s lands by 2030. She also vowed to phase out fossil fuel development on public lands and implement policies that would allow for the lands to be net carbon sinks by 2030. During her time in the Senate, Harris was one of the original co-sponsors of a Green New Deal resolution – a measure that would call for the federal government to divest from fossil fuels and curb greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. It also promoted for boosting jobs in clean energy industries, investing in infrastructure, securing clean air and water, and “promoting justice and equality.” The resolution, though, was merely a messaging measure and would not have changed law. Biden, in contrast, distanced himself from the Green New Deal. During his first presidential debate, Biden explicitly stated that the Green New Deal “is not my plan.” Republicans have frequently used the Green New Deal to campaign against Democrats as promoting radical climate ideas. During her own presidential campaign, Harris touted her work as an attorney general in California, stating that she “took on oil companies that were polluting our environment. She also launched an investigation into whether Exxon Mobil lied to the public and shareholders about its contributions to climate change, and worked on indictments against Plains All American Pipeline over a 2015 oil spill. Several green groups came out in support of Biden’s decision to drop out of the race on Sunday, such as Evergreen Action, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Environmental Defense Fund. “From establishing one of the first environmental justice units in the country when she was the district attorney of San Francisco, to taking on Big Oil in the courts as California Attorney General, to introducing visionary legislation including the Climate Equity Act and Clean School Bus Act in the Senate, Vice President Harris has fought to hold polluters accountable and deliver for the hardest-hit communities her entire career,” Evergreen Action Executive Director Lena Moffitt said in a statement. “We are confident that she is ready to carry forward President Biden’s historic legacy and set a new high bar for climate ambition in America.” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Although Harris could take more centrist stances in her campaign this time, her past positions could serve as fodder for Republican attacks as she looks to defeat former President Donald Trump – who favors greater fossil fuel production, has called climate change a “hoax,” and has said he will roll back many of the IRA’s provisions., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/kamala-harris-biden-steps-down-1024×592.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Nancy Vu,

The Environmental Protection Agency finalized winners of a competitive grant program allotting $4.3 billion to help states curb greenhouse gas emissions – a move that comes as the agency races to finalize disbursement of funds from Democrats’ 2022 climate law. 

The EPA announced Monday it has selected 25 applicants that will fund projects in 30 states to cut pollution in various sectors, such as transportation, electric power, buildings, industry, agriculture and lands, and waste and materials management. The funds make up the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program, which was established by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act to help states tackle climate change. The announced grantees represents a second tranche of funds from the program. The first tranche of funds helped states and cities develop climate action plans. 

“President Biden’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants put local governments in the driver’s sea to develop climate solutions that work for their communities,” said John Podesta, a senior Biden climate advisor. “These grants will help state and local governments improve the air quality and health of their communities, while accelerating America’s progress toward our climate goals.”

The finalized funds come as the Biden administration is racing to get money out the door that was allotted through the IRA, along with the 2019 bipartisan infrastructure law. The measures, along with the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act and the 2021 pandemic relief package, are all the cornerstones of Biden’s legacy – but are predicated on funds within the laws being rolled out. A second Trump term could run the risk of upheaving the rollout of these laws, with former President Donald Trump threatening to overturn what he calls Biden’s “Green New Scam.” 

The EPA estimates the proposed projects will reduce greenhouse gas pollution by as much as 971 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2050, which is roughly equivalent the emissions stemming from the average energy use of 5 million homes each year for over 25 years. The projects aim to help reach the Biden administration’s goals of reducing climate pollution by over 50% by 2030 and achieving net zero emissions no later than 2050. 

The EPA picked its grantees through a competition that involved nearly 300 applications. Many of the recipients are local government entities. For example, the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy will fund measures to increase the adoption of climate-focused methods for agriculture to help reduce waste from livestock. The funds will also work to improve energy efficiency in facilities and households, along with deploying solar and electrifying irrigation wells.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

However, the number of grants falls below the previous number EPA estimated for the program – which was between 30 to 115. 

EPA expects for funds to be given to recipients later this fall. The agency will also announce up to an additional $300 million in selections for tribes and territories later this summer. 

2024-07-22 11:36:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolicy%2F3093317%2Fepa-announces-4-3b-in-pollution-cutting-grants%2F?w=600&h=450, The Environmental Protection Agency finalized winners of a competitive grant program allotting $4.3 billion to help states curb greenhouse gas emissions – a move that comes as the agency races to finalize disbursement of funds from Democrats’ 2022 climate law.  The EPA announced Monday it has selected 25 applicants that will fund projects in 30,

The Environmental Protection Agency finalized winners of a competitive grant program allotting $4.3 billion to help states curb greenhouse gas emissions – a move that comes as the agency races to finalize disbursement of funds from Democrats’ 2022 climate law. 

The EPA announced Monday it has selected 25 applicants that will fund projects in 30 states to cut pollution in various sectors, such as transportation, electric power, buildings, industry, agriculture and lands, and waste and materials management. The funds make up the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program, which was established by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act to help states tackle climate change. The announced grantees represents a second tranche of funds from the program. The first tranche of funds helped states and cities develop climate action plans. 

“President Biden’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants put local governments in the driver’s sea to develop climate solutions that work for their communities,” said John Podesta, a senior Biden climate advisor. “These grants will help state and local governments improve the air quality and health of their communities, while accelerating America’s progress toward our climate goals.”

The finalized funds come as the Biden administration is racing to get money out the door that was allotted through the IRA, along with the 2019 bipartisan infrastructure law. The measures, along with the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act and the 2021 pandemic relief package, are all the cornerstones of Biden’s legacy – but are predicated on funds within the laws being rolled out. A second Trump term could run the risk of upheaving the rollout of these laws, with former President Donald Trump threatening to overturn what he calls Biden’s “Green New Scam.” 

The EPA estimates the proposed projects will reduce greenhouse gas pollution by as much as 971 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2050, which is roughly equivalent the emissions stemming from the average energy use of 5 million homes each year for over 25 years. The projects aim to help reach the Biden administration’s goals of reducing climate pollution by over 50% by 2030 and achieving net zero emissions no later than 2050. 

The EPA picked its grantees through a competition that involved nearly 300 applications. Many of the recipients are local government entities. For example, the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy will fund measures to increase the adoption of climate-focused methods for agriculture to help reduce waste from livestock. The funds will also work to improve energy efficiency in facilities and households, along with deploying solar and electrifying irrigation wells.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

However, the number of grants falls below the previous number EPA estimated for the program – which was between 30 to 115. 

EPA expects for funds to be given to recipients later this fall. The agency will also announce up to an additional $300 million in selections for tribes and territories later this summer. 

, The Environmental Protection Agency finalized winners of a competitive grant program allotting $4.3 billion to help states curb greenhouse gas emissions – a move that comes as the agency races to finalize disbursement of funds from Democrats’ 2022 climate law.  The EPA announced Monday it has selected 25 applicants that will fund projects in 30 states to cut pollution in various sectors, such as transportation, electric power, buildings, industry, agriculture and lands, and waste and materials management. The funds make up the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program, which was established by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act to help states tackle climate change. The announced grantees represents a second tranche of funds from the program. The first tranche of funds helped states and cities develop climate action plans.  “President Biden’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants put local governments in the driver’s sea to develop climate solutions that work for their communities,” said John Podesta, a senior Biden climate advisor. “These grants will help state and local governments improve the air quality and health of their communities, while accelerating America’s progress toward our climate goals.” The finalized funds come as the Biden administration is racing to get money out the door that was allotted through the IRA, along with the 2019 bipartisan infrastructure law. The measures, along with the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act and the 2021 pandemic relief package, are all the cornerstones of Biden’s legacy – but are predicated on funds within the laws being rolled out. A second Trump term could run the risk of upheaving the rollout of these laws, with former President Donald Trump threatening to overturn what he calls Biden’s “Green New Scam.”  The EPA estimates the proposed projects will reduce greenhouse gas pollution by as much as 971 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2050, which is roughly equivalent the emissions stemming from the average energy use of 5 million homes each year for over 25 years. The projects aim to help reach the Biden administration’s goals of reducing climate pollution by over 50% by 2030 and achieving net zero emissions no later than 2050.  The EPA picked its grantees through a competition that involved nearly 300 applications. Many of the recipients are local government entities. For example, the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy will fund measures to increase the adoption of climate-focused methods for agriculture to help reduce waste from livestock. The funds will also work to improve energy efficiency in facilities and households, along with deploying solar and electrifying irrigation wells. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER However, the number of grants falls below the previous number EPA estimated for the program – which was between 30 to 115.  EPA expects for funds to be given to recipients later this fall. The agency will also announce up to an additional $300 million in selections for tribes and territories later this summer. , , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/AP24078556861865-1024×682.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Nancy Vu,

VON DER LEYEN’S GREEN PLANS: European parliament members have reelected Ursula von der Leyen Thursday to another five-year term as president of the European Union’s executive commission – and she’s got a few ambitious green goals she’s hoping to implement within her second term, Nancy writes. 

In a statement released ahead of the election, the EU Commission president promised to adhere to the targets of the European Green New Deal, while looking to enshrine the goal of cutting 90% of carbon emissions by 2040 into law. 

“For our young people, 2030, 2040, 2050 is around the corner,” the statement reads. “They know that we have to reconcile climate protection with a prosperous economy. And they would never forgive us if we do not rise to the challenge.” 

The newly reelected official also promised to put forward a new “Clean Industrial Deal” in the first 100 days of her new term, which would funnel investment into infrastructure and industry for energy-intensive sectors. The efforts, she argues, would look to bring down energy costs – which have become a problem following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which raised prices for surrounding European nations.

“This will help create lead markets in everything from clean steel to clean tech and it will speed up planning, tendering, and permitting,” she writes. “Therefore, together, we will ensure that the era of dependency on Russian fossil fuels is over.” 

The European Green New Deal, which was signed into law in 2020, is a set of environmental policies to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. 

Analysis of the vote: Winning with well-above the majority needed to secure her reelection, a number of Greens had backed von der Leyen following the release of her statement promising to work on climate initiatives. According to BBC News, the EU Commission president acknowledged the group’s votes were crucial to her winning a second term, saying she was “very grateful” for their support.  

Welcome to Daily on Energy, written by Washington Examiner Energy and Environment writer Nancy Vu (@NancyVu99), with help from policy editor Joseph Lawler. Email nancy.vu@washingtonexaminer dot com 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.  

APPROPRIATIONS WATCH: Senate appropriators have scheduled the next committee mark-up of funding bills for next Thursday – and this includes a mark-up of the Interior and Environment bill, along with the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development measure. 

Just a reminder: The Senate has passed three funding bills out of committee, while the House has passed all 12 funding bills out of committee and four from the floor.

So, who’s winning the approps race? Well, it’s not a race per se … but the House is surely moving quicker than the Senate! 

But what remains to be seen: If both chambers can pass all 12 bills before the Oct. 1 funding deadline. 

Watch the mark-up here on July 25 at 9:30 a.m. 

INTERIOR SECRETARY BOEBERT? Rep. Lauren Boebert is looking for a promotion if former President Donald Trump were to win the White House – and she’s already eyeing the top slot at the Interior Department, Source NM writes.

In an interview with radio show Native American Calling on Wednesday, the Colorado Republican expressed that she’s interested in the job. 

“I think Lauren Boebert needs to be the secretary of the Interior. President Trump, I would like to be secretary of the Interior,” she told the radio show. 

Boebert, who sits on the House Natural Resources Committee, would replace current Interior Secretary Deb Haaland in that scenario. In the interview, she mentioned that she would roll back a number of Haaland efforts, such as expanding the Bears Ears National Monument. She also advocated for further fossil fuel projects, and would move the Bureau of Land Management offices out of Washington, D.C., and into other states. 

What to expect if she were to be the top Interior official: The Colorado Republican is a crusader for fossil fuels – often touting the phrase “Drill, baby, drill” – and has aligned herself closely with Trump’s record. When asked about the Antiquities Act, she responded, “Ugh, the Antiquities Act, nope.” 

“There’s been a lot of things through the Antiquities Act where we have had land grabs by the federal government. I do not want any land grabs. I do not want more wilderness areas. I don’t want these, these areas where we are unable to actually manage the land,” she said.

MAJOR LAYOFFS AT MINING GIANT FORTESCUE: Global mining company Fortescue is enacting hundreds of layoffs and dropping its ambitious original goal of mass producing green hydrogen by 2030, the Financial Times scoops. 

The mining company – led by Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest, one of Australia’s most affluent individuals – initially sought to mass produce 15 million tonnes of green hydrogen per year. But they soon realized the goal was out of reach, the publication writes. 

The original goal is still there – but the timeline is likely going to be pushed back amid the company dramatically cutting its workforce by 700 jobs. 

Why it matters: Forrest has been one of the leading voices for investment in green hydrogen. But Fortescue joins a trend of companies scaling back plans for green hydrogen, as the industry faces headwinds from high technological costs and mild demand. The French utility Engie and Norwegian renewable energy company StatKraft have both lowered targets for green hydrogen production. 

Read more here. 

SPEAKING OF CLEAN HYDROGEN…: The Department of Energy has inked its first official deal to launch a hub producing clean hydrogen. 

The Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Systems, otherwise known as ARCHES, has reached a $12.6 billion agreement with DOE to launch the first of seven hydrogen hubs across the country. The hub is expected to facilitate the production of clean hydrogen to curb the use of fossil fuels, with the aim of decarbonizing public transportation by 2 million metric tons per year – the emissions roughly equivalent of 445,000 gas-fired cars. 

“Thanks to the Biden-Harris Administration, California is excited to pioneer this world-leading initiative that’ll show other states and countries what’s possible when you prioritize clean energy and public health,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a written statement. 

Why it’s important: $1.2 billion of the funds from the agreement stemmed from the bipartisan infrastructure law, which allocated billions to build out clean hydrogen infrastructure to support the sector. The Inflation Reduction Act also included billions in tax credits to dole out to producers in hopes of jump-starting the industry.

Still, hurdles remain: Proposed guidance for the tax credit, otherwise known as 45V, is sparking outcry from industry players and lawmakers as being too strict – which they say threatens rollout of the credit to help support the burgeoning industry. Most recently, Democrats who voted for the IRA – and some who even wrote provisions related to the hydrogen tax credit – sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen expressing concerns about the tax credit guidance having “burdensome and unnecessary restrictions.” Rep. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat who worked to secure funding for the ARCHES hub, signed the letter. Read that here. 

RUNDOWN

E&E News Challenges to FERC grid rule set up post-Chevron court test

New York Times Why the Era of China’s Soaring Carbon Emissions Might Be Ending

Bloomberg Altman’s $3.7 Billion Fusion Startup Leaves Scientists Puzzled

European Parliament members reelected Ursula von der Leyen on Thursday to another five-year term as president of the European Union’s executive commission — and she’s got a few ambitious green goals she’s hoping to implement within her second term.

In a statement released ahead of the election, the European Commission president promised to adhere to the targets of the European Green New Deal while looking to enshrine the goal of cutting 90% of carbon emissions by 2040 into law. 

In the 720-seat legislature, 401 lawmakers voted for von der Leyen, with a number of members in the Green Party backing her reelection after she pledged to move forward on climate initiatives.

“For our young people, 2030, 2040, 2050 is around the corner,” the statement reads. “They know that we have to reconcile climate protection with a prosperous economy. And they would never forgive us if we do not rise to the challenge.” 

The newly reelected official also promised to put forward a new “Clean Industrial Deal” in the first 100 days of her new term, which would funnel investment into infrastructure and industry for energy-intensive sectors. The efforts, she argues, would look to bring down energy costs – which have become a problem following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which raised prices for surrounding European nations. 

“This will help create lead markets in everything from clean steel to clean tech and it will speed up planning, tendering, and permitting,” she writes. “Therefore, together, we will ensure that the era of dependency on Russian fossil fuels is over.” 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The European Green New Deal, which was signed into law in 2020, is a set of environmental policies to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.  

Clean energy tax credits have largely benefited higher-income tax filers, according to a new report by economists, illustrating a major pitfall for the Biden administration in its efforts to lower emissions through subsidies.

The top quintile of households by income received 60% of $47 billion in clean energy tax credits claimed from 2006 to 2021, according to the paper, which was done by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and circulated Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The tax credits were awarded for buying heat pumps, solar panels, electric vehicles, and other clean energy technologies.

Many of the credits were subsequently expanded by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act passed by Democrats and signed by President Joe Biden. The study did not directly address the effects of that law but underlined a common criticism that enacting incentives for the adoption of zero-carbon technologies, without also imposing penalties on carbon emissions, is insufficient to reach the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

“The cost effectiveness of tax credits hinges on their ability to increase adoption of clean energy technologies,” the paper noted. “Overall, we find little correlation between tax credits and technology adoption.”

The report added that the disproportion of the tax credits claimed by high-income earners is most dramatic with the electric vehicle tax credit, with the top quintile receiving 80% of all credits and the top 5% receiving about 50% of them. The authors also noted that for heat pumps in particular, it is difficult to find any “discernible impact” from past changes in the availability of the tax credit, although they cautioned that it is difficult to draw strong conclusions from year-to-year comparisons. 

The pattern of concentration of high-income filers claiming the benefits has remained “relatively constant over time,” the report noted. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The study did include a disclaimer, though, that the data miss households that do not file a tax return, which is roughly 18% of all U.S. households, and studying which households claim these monetary incentives does not address how much of the benefits are absorbed by sellers of the technologies through price increases. 

Economists have argued that the most effective way to reduce emissions, while incentivizing the adoption of clean energy technologies, would be to price them directly through a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program, according to the paper. Those policies are opposed by Republicans and many centrists. 

Congress is preparing for what could be a dramatic overhaul of its operations following a major Supreme Court ruling reining in the power of federal agencies. 

In its Loper Bright v. Raimondo decision last month, the high court overturned Chevron deference, a 40-year-old legal doctrine that required the courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of a law if Congress had left an issue ambiguous. The decision shifts much of the responsibility to write and interpret laws to the legislative and judicial branches. 

The parties are responding to the ruling in opposing ways. Republicans are looking to review and roll back a number of regulations promulgated by the Biden administration, while Democrats are looking to reverse the Chevron ruling altogether, saying it could result in the judicial branch, rather than the executive branch, writing policy.

On Wednesday, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) led an effort with Republican committee chairs to send more than 150 pages of letters to agency leaders, requesting an account of the different rules pushed under the Biden administration since the beginning of the president’s term, and various lists of pending judicial challenges, final agency rules, and pending rulemakings that could be affected by the Loper Bright ruling. 

The week of Chevron’s overturn, the conservative Republican Study Committee sent a policy memo to members outlining the congressional implications of the ruling, suggesting different actions to ensure legislating was reserved for Congress, and not the “administrative state.” The memo suggested committee heads “scour Biden-era regulatory actions” that could be considered for judicial review following the ruling. The letter also detailed measures that could codify the reversal of Chevron permanently and impose bold procedural reforms. 

“We have this chance, this moment,” to enact procedural changes, Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK), the RSC chairman, said. “If we don’t, then it could be another 40 or 50 years before it’s addressed.” 

One of those procedural reforms is the REINS Act, which would establish a congressional approval process for a major rule. The bill defines a “major rule” as one that will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, impose an increase in costs for consumers or industries, have adverse effects on the market, or entail an increase in mandatory vaccinations. The bill, led by Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL), passed the House last summer but stalled in the Democratic-controlled Senate. 

Democrats, however, are looking to go on the defense, and enact bills that would bring Congress back to before the legal doctrine was overturned. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) introduced a bill that would codify Chevron by limiting judicial interference with regulations while accelerating the rulemaking process.

Over on the Senate side, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a climate hawk and chairman of the Budget committee, said there will likely need to be a bill that clarifies the agency deference required when passing legislation. He also mentioned that lawmakers could also aim to amend the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs how federal agencies create and issue regulations, “to solve the problem that the court created.” 

“It cries out for a legislative fix, and puts us in a stupid position in which some judge who knows nothing about the substance of a complicated, technical topic is now encouraged to substitute his own judgment for the person who spent their life studying this and knows exactly what the answer is,” Whitehouse told the Washington Examiner. 

Whitehouse’s concerns mirror those of many within his party, who argue that the ruling allows for the judicial branch to have sweeping power in policymaking that they argue judges are unequipped for and exceeds their authority. 

“Unelected bureaucrats who know what they’re doing are being replaced by unelected judges who don’t know what they’re doing,” Sen. Angus King (I-ME), an independent who caucuses with Democrats and sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said. “Do you think the Supreme Court is qualified to determine which pesticides are safe to use in Iowa?” 

Whitehouse offered a separate anecdote, noting the Supreme Court had to revise its opinion in a separate ruling, Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, after Justice Neil Gorsuch referred five times to nitrous oxide, otherwise known as laughing gas, when he actually meant to refer to nitrogen oxide, an air pollutant that the EPA was aiming to curb. 

“In the same week, they said, ‘You can trust us to replace the subject matter experts, and by the way, we don’t know the difference between nitrous oxide and nitrogen oxide,’ and that’s the important thing,” Whitehouse said.

Republicans, on the other hand, cheered the Loper Bright ruling, arguing that it curbs overreach by the executive branch. 

However, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have largely come to the same conclusion: that the ruling will put more emphasis on Congress to be more precise in the legislation it passes and raise the stakes for negotiating legislation. 

“I think clearly the burden now is for Congress to put more effort and more detail into the measures that were passed,” Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO), a member of the Energy committee, said. “We’re probably going to have to go back and redebate some of these bills. So, that’s going to be a big piece of work. Some of the committees are gonna have to step up.” 

However, some Republican senators pushed back on the notion that Congress will have more of a prominent role to play following the Chevron overturn and instead asserted that Congress’s authority remains the same.

“What I’m not looking to do is replace one bureaucracy with another bureaucracy,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), who sits on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said. 

J.D. Rackey, a senior analyst for the Bipartisan Policy Center, said that it will likely take a situation in which the courts strike down bipartisan policies due to legislative vagueness to encourage Congress to beef up on policy experts to be more prescriptive in law-writing.  

“Congress doesn’t have the expertise and the capacity it needs when it wants to be more prescriptive, and so as this continues to play out, I don’t think Congress is going to immediately change,” Rackey said.

Several lawmakers who spoke to the Washington Examiner, both Republican and Democratic, were hesitant or outright opposed to the idea of hiring more staff, especially when the effects of the Chevron ruling could take years to reverberate through the halls of Congress. Plus, House Republicans have been staunchly against further government spending. 

According to the Congressional Management Foundation, the legislative branch in 2015 had several thousand fewer employees than in the 1980s and 1990s. Funding for the executive branch, on the other hand, was 120 times greater than the funding for Congress. However, the number of constituents the House represents has increased significantly over time. 

Although the House Modernization Committee was formed in 2019 to help better this issue, “not nearly enough progress has been made” to provide Congress with expertise it may need to adjust to the Loper Bright decision, Rackey said. The panel was disbanded at the end of the 117th Congress but was brought back as a subcommittee under the House Administration Committee in 2023.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the chairman of the legislative branch appropriations subcommittee, noted that the Chevron decision came after senators considered the bulk of the Senate’s bill to fund Congress. 

“We think we’ve got adequate funding for the projected needs of the workforce for the next year,” he said. “If there’s a noticeable need for an increased workforce, we’ll consider that. But right now, I think the agencies feel very comfortable.”

General Motors has reached an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department to resolve excess emissions stemming from nearly 6 million of its vehicles — and the company has agreed to pay a penalty of nearly $146 million. 

The penalty is a result of an EPA investigation that identified excess carbon emissions from GM vehicles, violating federal regulations. Tests done by both GM and the EPA showed that the company’s vehicles were emitting an average of 10% higher CO2 levels than previous reports claimed. 

“EPA’s vehicle standards depend on strong oversight in order to deliver public health benefits in the real world,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said. “Our investigation has achieved accountability and upholds an important program that’s reducing air pollution and protecting communities across the country.”

The agreement comes after the Biden administration has issued one of the toughest tailpipe emission standards for vehicles. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

As part of the agreement, the car company has retired approximately 50 million metric tons of greenhouse gas credits. In a statement to the Washington Examiner, a spokesperson for GM said the company will resolve outstanding problems with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration through a combination of compliance mechanisms. However, in agreeing to the resolution, General Motors admitted to no wrongdoing or noncompliance with federal regulations, including the Clean Air Act and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. 

“We believe this is the best course of action to swiftly resolve outstanding issues with the federal government regarding this matter,” said Bill Grotz, a spokesman for the company. “GM remains committed to reducing auto emissions and working toward achieving the administration’s fleet electrification goals.”