“Death by a thousand cuts”: How Congress continues to whittle away at a critical environmental policy:
“A bipartisan transportation bill moving through Congress contains provisions that would significantly undermine the federal environmental review process for infrastructure projects like highways, railroads, and bridges, environmentalists and policy experts
say. Last week, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act of 2021. Buried in the bill’s 540 pages of text are rollbacks to one of the country’s most important environmental laws, the National Environmental
Policy Act, or NEPA. The rollbacks excuse certain categories of infrastructure projects from the environmental review process, establish time and page limits on environmental reviews, and expand a program that gives individual states authority over reviews.
Taken separately, the provisions seem to only tweak NEPA, but critics say they are part of a long-term effort by Republicans to whittle away at the law’s authority and could have significant impacts on communities across the country. “It’s making swiss cheese
of the NEPA statute by putting an increasing number of holes in it,” said Deron Lovaas, a senior policy advisor at the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC. Enacted in 1970, NEPA was the first major environmental law in the United States and has been
referred to as the “Magna Carta” of federal environmental laws. It was created to ensure that agencies fully consider the environmental consequences of their actions and explore lower-impact alternatives. It’s also an important civil rights policy, guaranteeing
that communities are included in the development process of nearby projects, like highways.”
[Grist, 6/1/21]
https://bit.ly/3ibuAqj
Biden Administration Suspends Oil Leases in Arctic Refuge: “The Biden administration on
Tuesday suspended oil leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, blocking plans for the first-ever drilling program in the pristine 19-million-acre wilderness. The Interior Department said the program will be on hold until it completes a comprehensive
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. The review could ultimately lead to the leases being voided altogether, the department said. “Today marks an important step forward fulfilling President Biden’s promise to protect the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge,” Gina McCarthy, the White House national climate adviser, said in a statement. Drilling could change “the character of this special place forever,” she added. The decision is the latest twist in more than 30 years of fights, often highly partisan,
over how to manage what many consider some of the country’s last unspoiled wilderness. Republicans and oil interests are still adamantly pushing for industry’s right to explore this remote northeast corner of Alaska. Even so, it comes at a time when the industry’s
interest in working there has waned significantly. Under pressure from Wall Street to reduce costs and raise profits, oil companies have been shying away from expensive and delicate megaprojects, damping interest even in what was considered among the last
great frontiers in North American oil. The bidding process in the Arctic refuge, finished days before former President Donald Trump left office, produced no offers from major oil companies, and only $14 million in high bids—far from the billion dollars projected
by the Congressional Budget Office just three years before.”
[Wall Street Journal, 6/2/21]
https://on.wsj.com/3pdy5h8
Biden freezes oil leases in Alaska refuge pending new environmental review: “The Biden administration
is suspending all oil and gas leases in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge pending a deeper look at the environmental impacts of drilling in the sensitive region, the Interior Department said Tuesday. The suspension of the leases, which POLITICO first
reported earlier in the day, follows President Joe Biden's January 20 executive order that identified “alleged legal deficiencies” in the original leasing program and put in place a temporary moratorium on any oil- and gas-related activities in the refuge.
The executive order also left open the possibility that the department would undertake a new environmental review to address potential legal flaws in the program. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland wrote in a secretarial order calling for the suspension that those
legal deficiencies, "including the inadequacy of the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act," prompted the temporary moratorium activities around the leases ANWR. The agency will publish its intent to start the review in the
Federal Register in the next 60 days. A new environmental analysis could impose additional restrictions on development in the refuge or potentially nullify the leases altogether, undoing one of the signature policy achievements of the Trump administration.
But Tuesday's secretarial order does not go as far as green groups have requested in an ongoing lawsuit, which aims to void the leases that were awarded earlier this year. The move comes after the Biden administration disappointed environmental groups last
week by lending its support to developing ConocoPhillips' Willow project in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, the area that lies to the west of ANWR.”
[POLITICO, 6/1/21]
https://politi.co/3pbdBG2
'Outrageous': Alaska lawmakers respond to ANWR drilling halt: “Last week, Alaska's three-member
all-GOP congressional delegation was giddily celebrating the Biden administration's seeming reversal in its stance on a controversial home-state oil project — and claiming credit for securing the victory. Yesterday, the same lawmakers were excoriating the
president for moving to suspend oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — and saying they weren't at all surprised by the affront. "Not unexpected but ... outrageous nonetheless," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski. "A naked political move ... to pay
off [Biden's] extreme environmental allies," Sen. Dan Sullivan said in agreement. The political and policy whiplash of the last week could be a sign that bipartisan goodwill when it comes to energy policy will likely be short-lived in the Biden era. The events
also illustrate the much larger tensions at play as administration officials seek to pacify lawmakers, environmentalists and industry stakeholders. Yesterday's announcement laid out the administration's plans to suspend all ANWR oil and gas drilling leases
that were sold in the final days of the Trump administration, pending an environmental analysis by the Interior Department. The action follows through on an executive order President Biden signed his first day in office to temporarily freeze all oil and gas
activity in the refuge's coastal plain and bolsters a frequent campaign talking point that he opposed drilling in the area. While Democratic lawmakers and advocates cheered the news yesterday, they were the same ones who just days earlier decried the administration's
decision to defend a separate Arctic oil development in court, the ConocoPhillips-managed Willow project in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.”
[E&E News, 6/2/21]
https://bit.ly/2RdUT3U
AGs battle at FERC over social cost of carbon: “Comments submitted to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission over pipeline approvals are exposing a deep rift between states over the social cost of carbon and its role in assessing natural gas projects. Democratic attorneys general from eight East Coast states and the District of Columbia last
week urged FERC to assess the economic damage of greenhouse gas emissions from proposed natural gas projects using "best available" estimates for the social cost of carbon. The comments contrasted with those from 22 Republican state attorneys general in April
calling for the commission to avoid using any social cost of carbon analyses in its pipeline review process. Doing so would run counter to FERC's mandates under the Natural Gas Act and inflate the costs of natural gas, the Republican attorneys general wrote.
Both sets of comments were submitted as part of an ongoing review of FERC's 1999 Certificate Policy Statement, which guides how the agency approves new interstate gas pipelines. The inquiry involves FERC's consideration of landowner interests, environmental
justice communities and other issues relating to the commission's pipeline approval processes, and has attracted thousands of comments from industry groups, environmental advocates, federal agencies and others. FERC has previously declined to use the social
cost of carbon — an estimate of the economic damage incurred due to a project's greenhouse gas emissions — when considering various proposals, the Republican attorneys general said. In general, there is no standard methodology for determining the carbon emissions
of a project, and the estimated costs of carbon have changed under different presidential administrations, they wrote. Former President Obama established a formula for estimating the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2 and other planet-warming
emissions such as methane. The Trump administration lowered the social cost of carbon significantly to $1 to $7 per ton of carbon, and the Biden administration raised the estimate to $51 per ton of CO2 in March.”
[E&E News, 6/2/21]
https://bit.ly/3i7UYRP
Biden Era Brings Legal Disappointments for Environmental Groups: “Environmental advocates
hoping for a complete reversal of Trump-era legal positions have faced a series of disappointments in the first months of the Biden administration—generating some early tension between the president and green groups. Government lawyers have opposed efforts
to shut down the Dakota Access pipeline, supported a massive oil project in the Arctic, and preserved an environmental review rule despised by activists. It’s common for a new administration to defend many of its predecessor’s actions in court—either for institutional
reasons inside the executive branch or simply because a previous policy isn’t controversial enough to merit a change in position. But several recent defenses of Trump-era decisions stand out as President Joe Biden launches ambitious environmental plans and
erases other parts of the last administration’s legacy. The contrast has left many environmentalists confused and angry. “It’s worse when your friends disappoint you,” Vermont Law School professor Patrick Parenteau said. That dynamic was on display last month
when the Justice Department and conservation groups squared off over a Trump-era policy that allowed oil and gas leasing in sage grouse territory in the West. The Interior Department under Biden has paused new leasing across public lands but nevertheless appeared
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to fight to restore tracts in the rare grouse’s habitat. “We were really baffled by DOJ’s position defending these illegally issued Trump-era leases,” Earthjustice lawyer Mike Freeman, who argued against the
government that day, said in an interview. “The arguments went directly against the environmental goals that President Biden ran on.’”
[Bloomberg, 6/1/21]
https://bit.ly/3cdSo93
Mine cleanup, conservation, offshore wind boosted in budget: “President Biden is calling
on Congress to greenlight a 17% increase in funding for the Interior Department in fiscal 2022 from the current enacted levels, providing a major boost for an agency that suffered both budget constraints and low morale in the Trump era. The details of the
$17.4 billion request also highlight the new administration's focus on combating climate change and ushering in a new "green economy" within the constraints of current political realities. The budget blueprint, for instance, continues to put money and resources
into federal oil and gas production, with a caveat that an agency like the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management "supports Administration efforts to create good paying jobs as the Nation transitions to a clean energy future." In many places, the framework also
steers clear of significant controversy. The administration has requested a 21% increase for the Bureau of Land Management — to $1.48 billion in fiscal 2022 from $1.2 billion currently — but is silent on whether funding would or should be made available in
the event BLM headquarters is relocated back to Washington after the controversial move to Grand Junction, Colo., last year. And although the budget proposal gives a nod to the "America the Beautiful" initiative — the White House's conservation push to set
aside 30% of the nation's lands and waters by 2030 — it offers few specifics about what programs now fall under that umbrella, an information gap that has fueled criticism of the effort.”
[E&E News, 6/2/21]
https://bit.ly/3uKkn6A
What Biden's $6T budget plan means for energy: “President Biden's first full budget request
positions his Department of Energy and related agencies at the heart of his aggressive effort to reach zero carbon emissions by 2050. The $6 trillion fiscal 2022 budget request is a massive spending package and met with heated opposition from Republicans who
balked at the price tag. But environmentalists and some Democrats hailed the emphasis on tackling climate change and accelerating the transition to green energy. "It's an extraordinarily ambitious set of investments in a wide range of clean energy and climate
priorities," Paul Bledsoe, an adviser at the Progressive Policy Institute, said of the spending plan, which would increase DOE's budget to $46.1 billion, compared with the current level of $41.8 billion. "It's the first budget that matches the true determination
to decarbonize the U.S. economy by midcentury." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the budget dollars "would just disappear into a million mediocre socialist daydreams, from electric car subsidies to work-discouraging welfare programs." Bledsoe,
a former Senate Finance Committee staffer, noted that the budget proposal was unveiled as Democrats on the committee last week advanced dozens of tax breaks aimed at boosting clean energy.”
[E&E News, 6/1/21]
https://bit.ly/3yX2B3p
5 Biden spending proposals Congress could get behind: “Lawmakers dismissing the president's
annual budget request as dead on arrival on Capitol Hill is as predictable as cicadas heading above ground every 17 years. But the political brushoff from Congress overlooks the fact that many programs proposed by the White House often get enacted with minimal
changes. Here are five energy and environmental policy areas expected to become law after appropriators craft the fiscal 2022 bills later this year. Democrats and Republicans have not found much common ground on fighting climate change — with the exception
of deep funding for clean energy research and development.
While the president has proposed billions of dollars for an array of programs, a safe bet for getting funding is the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), an incubator of clean energy technologies that has consistently won support from both parties.
Attempts to eliminate the DOE agency by the Trump White House were dismissed and it seems likely Congress will at least match the administration's $500 million request for fiscal 2022. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute noted in a recent
letter to lawmakers that it supports "$500 million to continue to expand funding for ARPA-E, a well-managed program that pursues high-risk, high-reward clean energy technologies." The Biden administration also is seeking about $200 million to start a new Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Climate (ARPA-C), but some lawmakers have already suggested that effort is redundant to the existing APRA-E.”
[E&E News, 6/2/21]
https://bit.ly/3ij0d0S
Justin McCarthy
He/Him/His
Director, NEPA Campaign
The Partnership Project
C: 540-312-3797
E: jmccarthy@partnershipproject.org
The Partnership Project, a registered 501 (c) (3) non-profit, is a collaborative effort of over 20 of the country’s most influential advocacy organizations, including Sierra Club, Earthjustice, League of Conservation Voters, and Natural
Resources Defense Council.