Top Headlines

 

Reuters | Trump Admin Gets An Earful On Proposed Carbon Rule.

 

'We Obviously Are Suspicious' — Dems Prep For 2019.

 

Report: Pelosi Urges Revival Of House Climate Panel.

 

U.S. Sustainable-Investing Holdings Grow To $12T.

 

Waters Are Heating Up Far Faster Than Expected.

 

 

Environmental Protection Agency

 

Andrew Wheeler

 

'We Obviously Are Suspicious' — Dems Prep For 2019. According to E&E News, “House Democrats can’t wait to call President Trump’s EPA chief to the witness stand. The agency — long a source of controversy no matter which administration runs it — could soon be up against Democratic committee heads eager to hold hearings and subpoena documents. Trump’s plans for EPA, including reshaping the workforce, overhauling the use of science and rolling back Obama-era regulations, will all get heavy scrutiny if the House flips to Democratic control next year. It would be a new day for EPA — one where members of the opposition party shed new light on what the agency has been doing during the past two years as Republicans ran both houses of Congress. ‘I would expect very aggressive oversight finally being asserted by our committee,’ said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who sits on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. ‘The Republicans have just gone totally dark and quiet. They see and hear and speak no evil when it comes to the Trump administration.’ Increased scrutiny from a Democrat-led House would come at a vulnerable time for the agency. The clock is ticking on how long acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler can remain atop the agency. He could have to step down as early as next February, although Trump has signaled he’ll nominate Wheeler to keep the job.” [E&E News, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

EPA Leadership & Personnel

 

Headquarters’ Offices

 

Staff Complains About Racist Messages Scrawled In EPA’s Public Affairs Office. According to Politico, “EPA staff filed a complaint to agency managers after someone wrote a series of racist messages on a shared wall calendar in EPA’s Office of Public Affairs in recent months, according to an agency union representative and EPA officials. The first message was posted in August to a whiteboard calendar hung in an office at EPA headquarters where as many as 19 EPA career staffers work, according to a source who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the issue. At least four other messages containing racial slurs were scrawled on the calendar in September and October. Career officials reported the messages to EPA management, who told POLITICO in a statement Wednesday that they are investigating the incidents and ‘will reprimand guilty parties.’ But the EPA staff union says the agency’s leaders have yet to address the staff about the issue. ‘I received information that an employee or group of employees in OPA in EPA headquarters had witnessed some writings on what was a scheduling board that was supposed to contain the schedules in that office,’ said Nate James, president of the American Federation of Government Employees local that represents OPA career staff. ‘To my understanding, this was not an isolated incident.’ … The message upset career staffers, according to the source, who was ‘afraid, not knowing who did this and whether my safety is at risk.’ James, the union representative, said he was distressed that EPA leadership had so far done nothing to reach out to employees, especially considering how long the messages had been appearing.” [Politico, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

Clean Air

 

ACE, CPP, & Clean Air Act

 

Trump Admin Gets An Earful On Proposed Carbon Rule. According to E&E News, “From personal pleas to cut air pollution to detailed criticisms of agency policy, members of the public made clear they saw little they liked in EPA’s proposed replacement for the Clean Power Plan. Many of the tens of thousands of comments submitted to the agency ahead of yesterday’s public comment deadline opposed the Affordable Clean Energy rule, the Trump administration’s proposal to cut emissions from power plants. Most opponents called for stricter climate action on the second-largest source of carbon emissions in the country. But some faulted the agency for drafting a rule at all. EPA had received more than 90,000 comments as of yesterday on the ACE rule, which would cut carbon emissions by making power plants increase the efficiency of their operation and give states broad discretion to determine how much to regulate. The proposal also includes a parallel measure that would change when plant modifications trigger permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review program. The rule would be a marked change from the Clean Power Plan, which gave states a variety of options for cutting carbon and set an overall nationwide target of reducing power plant emissions by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The public slammed the Trump administration for failing to propose any target for carbon emissions reductions from power plants. Commenters pointed to the recent U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that warned of the need for urgent action to curb climate change.” [E&E News, 11/1/18 (=)]

 

Reuters | Trump Carbon Plan Attacked By Coastal States, Lauded By Coal Interests. According to CNBC, “The heads of environmental and energy agencies from 14 mostly coastal states, including California, New York and North Carolina, told the EPA in joint comments on the Trump plan that it would result in minimal reductions of greenhouse gases, and possibly result in increased emissions, relative to having no federal program on the pollution. ‘We urge EPA to abandon this proposal and instead to maintain or update the (Obama era) Clean Power Plan,’ which the states said would fulfill EPAs obligations under federal clean air law and support the efforts of states to mitigate the effects of climate change. Some states including New York and Virginia have threatened to sue the EPA if the plan becomes law. … Coal and some utility interests lauded the Trump plan. ‘The proposed ACE rule is a welcome return to federal restraint after years of punitive overreach, said Hal Quinn, the president and CEO of the National Mining Association, an industry group.” [CNBC, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

Battle Lines Emerge In Future Lawsuits Over Trump EPA's Utility GHG Rule. According to Inside EPA, “Battle lines are emerging for expected future lawsuits over EPA’s proposal to replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP) utility greenhouse gas standards with a much narrower policy, with industry groups praising the new rule as a valid use of Clean Air Act powers while environmentalists blast it as doing little to cut GHGs. The arguments come in detailed comments submitted ahead of an Oct. 31 deadline on EPA’s proposed Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule to replace the CPP, with the comments previewing near-certain litigation over the measure after it is finalized next spring. Many comments were unavailable by press time due to the fact that groups had until the end of the day to file them. However, early submissions from key groups underscore many of the major issues that will be in play as EPA finalizes its rule and prepares for litigation. Perhaps the most prominent issue is Trump officials’ view that section 111(d) of the air law does not allow it to set GHG standards based on actions taken ‘beyond the fenceline’ of regulated power plants. As such, the ACE plan is limited to efficiency improvements within the boundaries of coal plants that would achieve marginal GHG cuts beyond business-as-usual scenarios.” [Inside EPA, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

EPA Quietly Telling States They Can Pollute More. According to CNN, “The Environmental Protection Agency has quietly signaled it may allow states to release more ozone air pollution, commonly known as smog, dirtying the air in those states and neighboring ones, but the agency did not review the health impact of such a move. The Trump administration’s position is outlined in a highly technical guidance memo about plans states must create and submit for EPA approval under the Clean Air Act’s good neighbor requirements. It was sent in August to EPA regional offices and posted on the agency’s website, but not announced to the public. The memo introduces the idea of increasing the threshold for how much smog a state can dump on its neighbors -- known as cross-state pollution -- before taking action to reduce emissions. Under the Trump administration’s new guidance, states that are currently finalizing their plans can consider adopting a looser standard than would have been allowed under the Obama administration. The new one part per billion standard means a state can emit 43% more pollution across state lines than before. Smog is a byproduct of air pollutants including greenhouse gases, which contribute to climate change. It can originate from sources including power plants, refineries and factories. Smog can reduce the ability of the lungs to function, and especially impacts children, people who are active outside, or those who have respiratory diseases. It is linked to breathing issues and conditions such as asthma.” [CNN, 10/31/18 (+)]

 

Texas Asks Trump EPA To Delay Emissions Reduction Program. According to E&E News, “Texas’ three environmental regulators agree with parts of the Trump administration substitute for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, but they want the administration to delay any action until court challenges to the plan are resolved. The Clean Power Plan, proposed by EPA in 2014, was aimed at addressing climate change by limiting greenhouse gas emissions from existing electric power plants. The Supreme Court stayed a court challenge to the plan’s legal basis in early 2016, and the case is still pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A separate challenge to EPA’s regulations on emissions from new or modified plants is also pending. ‘[A]ny replacement of the CPP is premature’ until those issues are resolved, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality wrote in comments submitted to EPA. The state Public Utility Commission and the state Railroad Commission, which oversees the oil and gas industry, endorsed the comments in an accompanying letter. At the same time, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) is also arguing that the appeals court case should be frozen. … However, the Texas agencies said, the Affordable Clean Energy plan would still create a burden on state regulators because they’d have to take an inventory of the generating plants and develop standards to meet the efficiency guidelines. EPA ‘severely mistakes’ the cost of complying with the plan and the amount of time it’ll take for states to comply, the Texas agencies said.” [E&E News, 11/1/18 (=)]

 

Department of Energy

 

Energy Secretary Heads To Europe On Natural-Gas Exports Push. According to Axios, “Energy Secretary Rick Perry is heading to Eastern Europe next week to make a series of announcements, including a new liquified natural-gas deal with Poland, according to an Energy Department official. Why it matters: Perry’s trip, which includes Poland, Ukraine, Hungary and Czech Republic, comes as the Trump administration is seeking to balance its conflicting goals of protectionist trade policies and American energy exports. Show less The details: Liquified natural gas will be a big focus of the trip, but Perry is also expected to push American cooperation on nuclear energy, cybersecurity and coal. His trip includes a tour of a Ukrainian power plant that received a shipment of U.S. coal last summer. Administration officials, including Perry and President Trump himself, have emphasized that European countries should lessen their dependence on Russian natural gas. The U.S., along with Poland, have criticized construction of an underwater natural-gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. Germany has supported the project. Reality check: Countries and companies will almost always choose the cheapest natural gas, which is often Russia for much of Europe, given the cost of liquefying and shipping American gas overseas. Asia has been America’s bigger customer.” [Axios, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

Grid Watch. According to Politico, “The nation’s largest power market is releasing a highly anticipated report today on how it is coping with power plant retirements. The ‘fuel security’ report from PJM Interconnection, whose territory spans from Illinois to New Jersey, may provide more clues on how the grid operator would respond to future efforts from the Trump administration to prop up struggling coal and nuclear plants. PJM CEO Andy Ott has criticized the Trump administration’s efforts to intervene in electricity markets on behalf of those facilities, and he told Senate lawmakers last month that there’s nothing that makes him particularly stressed out about the overall reliability of the electric grid. Still, he nevertheless acknowledged that it was a ‘legitimate question’ as to whether the region’s growing dependence on natural gas-fired electricity will become ‘a fuel security or an over dependency problem,’ which today’s study will presumably answer. The operator has been feeling out ways to boost the prices that generators get out of the markets and using the phrase ‘fuel security’ is awfully similar to the Energy Department’s ‘fuel-secure generation’ terminology.” [Politico, 11/1/18 (=)]

 

FERC

 

Glick Raises Bailout Concerns Over Resilience, Fuel Security Dockets. According to Utility Dive, “Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner Richard Glick raised concerns Tuesday about pending discussions on grid resilience and fuel security, telling reporters the issues could be used to prop up uneconomic power plants targeted for a bailout by the White House. ‘I am concerned that people may try to use the fuel security debate to achieve those goals,’ Glick said, adding that regulators should be ‘dubious’ when ‘people use the term ‘fuel security’ in the same sentence as ‘resilience.’ Glick’s statement came less than two days before the release of a major fuel security report from PJM, the grid operator for the largest U.S. electricity market. Some market participants are concerned the report may call for enhanced payments to coal and nuclear plants with little benefit for the grid.” [Utility Dive, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

Chatterjee Pledges To Keep FERC Apolitical. According to Politico, “Newly appointed FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee said on Wednesday he would follow in Kevin McIntyre’s footsteps in stressing the energy regulator’s political independence as it weighs measures to increase the power network’s resilience. ‘No one was more committed to the depoliticization of the agency than Kevin McIntyre,’ Chatterjee told reporters, adding McIntyre helped him transition from a ‘formerly partisan legislative aide to independent regulator.’ Chattterjee, who hails from Kentucky and last year publicly called for a ‘lifeboat’ for coal and nuclear power, said he had been ‘sympathetic’ to Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s effort to prop up coal power plants when he joined FERC from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office. But he said he had evolved at FERC and recognized the agency had a different responsibility. He promised to build on McIntyre’s work reviewing agency policies on natural gas infrastructure and the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, and listed his own priorities as reviewing liquefied natural gas export projects, cybersecurity and grid reliability.” [Politico, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

Other Agencies

 

Stand-In DOJ Environment Boss Reflects On Unplanned Tenure. According to E&E News, “Jeffrey Wood has been running the Justice Department’s environmental practice for nearly two years but never moved into the big office reserved for its leader. Named acting assistant attorney general in January 2017, Wood’s job was to keep the Environment and Natural Resources Division on track while awaiting the confirmation of Jeffrey Bossert Clark, President Trump’s long-term pick to lead the division. He never expected the post to last 21 months, the longest tenure for a temporary leader in ENRD’s history. ‘I thought this was going to be, as acting AAG, probably a four- to six-month assignment,’ Wood, 39, said during an interview last week in his office, which adjoins the vacant one saved for Clark. ‘Yeah, I never moved in there,’ he added, referring to Clark’s future digs. ‘Maybe superstition, or respect for the office.’ The Senate finally confirmed Clark to lead ENRD three weeks ago, and Wood will hand over the keys to the division tomorrow, along with his nearly two-year legacy of working with DOJ career staff and leaders at other agencies to carry out the Trump administration’s environmental priorities. ‘It’s really remarkable how long he’s been there,’ said former ENRD attorney Tom Lorenzen, now at Crowell & Moring LLP. ‘I think he came in with the anticipation that it would be a very short-time assignment, and he’s had to grow into a job that he didn’t think he’d have.’” [E&E News, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

Congress

 

House of Representatives

 

Report: Pelosi Urges Revival Of House Climate Panel. According to Politico, “House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wants Democrats to revive a committee dedicated to addressing climate change if they regain control of the House, she told the New York Times in an interview released today. Pelosi told the Times the panel would be similar to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that lasted from 2007 to 2011 and would ‘prepare the way with evidence’ for future energy conservation and climate change legislation. Now-Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) chaired the select panel, which helped craft landmark climate legislation that cleared the House in 2009 but faltered in the Senate. Republicans disbanded the committee after they regained the majority following the 2010 elections. Pelosi’s office was not immediately available for additional comment. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) was second in seniority to Markey on the previous iteration of the select committee.” [Politico, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

Markey Welcomes Revived Climate Panel. According to Politico, “After Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi suggested she’d bring back a select committee on climate change if Democrats regain the House, Sen. Ed Markey welcomed a potential resurrection. ‘With the Trump administration attacking clean energy and climate change solutions at every turn, a revived Select Committee in a Democrat-controlled House would be a powerful force for federal leadership to cut harmful carbon pollution and help America reach the goals we committed to in the Paris Climate agreement,’ Markey, who chaired the panel in the House and helped usher through landmark climate legislation, told ME in a statement.” [Politico, 11/1/18 (=)]

 

First Up If Democrats Win: Campaign And Ethics Changes, Infrastructure And Drug Prices. According to The New York Times, “Democrats would use their first month in the House majority to advance sweeping changes to future campaign and ethics laws, requiring the disclosure of shadowy political donors, outlawing the gerrymandering of congressional districts and restoring key enforcement provisions to the Voting Rights Act, top Democratic leaders said on Tuesday. … Ms. Pelosi said for the first time that she would urge her caucus to revive a select committee focused on climate change similar to the one that Democrats funded from 2007 to early 2011 to ‘prepare the way with evidence’ for energy conservation and other climate change mitigation legislation. Republicans defunded the panel when they took the majority, but Ms. Pelosi said it was clearly still needed to educate the public about the impact of more frequent extreme weather events. ‘The template for 2020 is getting built in the House,’ Representative Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, a progressive in line to chair the Natural Resources Committee, said summing up another Democratic view.” [The New York Times, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

Shutdown Showdown. According to Politico, “A Democratic takeover of the House next week could provoke Republicans to load up the remaining government spending measures with conservative priorities, daring Democrats to vote down bills that would prevent a shutdown, reports Pro’s Sarah Ferris. Multiple GOP aides predicted that a shellacking at the polls for House Republicans could juice the party’s appetite for December appropriations drama. On the flip side, Democrats could unleash their own legislative logjam if they fail to win back the House. While Congress managed to pass yearlong appropriations bills for most of the government in September, Interior and EPA are among the agencies who are still operating on a continuing resolution.” [Politico, 11/1/18 (=)]

 

Democrats Have No Broad Climate Plan Even As They Prepare To Win The House. According to The Guardian, “Democrats don’t have a plan to address climate change comprehensively – or even to a significant degree – if they regain control of the US government in the near future, despite criticizing Republicans as the party of pollution. After failing to get conservatives on board to limit planet-warming gases through legislation or regulation, Democratic leaders in Washington are now wary of wading into another tough political fight, despite an intensifying environmental crisis. If Democrats win back the House in Tuesday’s midterm elections, their strategy is to hold oversight hearings on Donald Trump’s environmental rollbacks and pursue more incremental and popular measures, according to close observers and a senior Democratic aide. Environmental advocates hoping progressive politicians will lead efforts to save the planet may be shocked to learn there’s no wide-ranging strategy or headline-grabbing legislation waiting to be unveiled – even if Democrats take the White House in 2020. The party’s efforts as currently planned won’t be enough to spur the rapid transformation in how society operates that leading scientists say is needed to spare humanity from the worst of rising temperatures, extreme weather and massive societal and economic disruptions. But few in the party – or the big environmental groups that traditionally support it – are prepared to admit this outright.” [The Guardian, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

2018 Elections

 

Climate Change Is On The Ballot. According to The New York Times, “The midterm elections are around the corner, and here on the climate desk we’ve been looking at how the issue of climate change is playing out around the country. It’s made its way into high-profile races where candidates have sparred over climate science, like Florida’s contest for governor between Ron DeSantis, a Republican who said he didn’t want to be known as an ‘alarmist,’ and Andrew Gillum, a Democrat who said he’d be a governor who ‘believes in science.’ And increasingly, we found, candidates in tight House and Senate races are becoming less shy about putting climate change on the airwaves, using political advertisements to both attack their opponents’ views and burnish their own green credentials. The biggest climate battle to watch is in Washington State, where voters will decide whether to approve the country’s first tax on carbon dioxide pollution. Oil companies have so far contributed more than $30 million to oppose the measure, known as Initiative 1631. Beyond the elections, our colleagues Eric Lipton and Hiroko Tabuchi chronicled how the Trump administration’s new rules governing oil and gas drilling are driving a fracking boom across the American West. So far, they found, more than 12.8 million acres of federally controlled oil and gas parcels have been offered for lease, triple the average offered during President Barack Obama’s second term. Flaring and venting of methane, meanwhile, has jumped 72 percent compared with two years ago amid rollbacks of federal rules curbing such practices.” [The New York Times, 10/31/18 (+)]

 

Texas Oil Regulator Seeking Re-Election Shrugs Off Industry Ties. According to E&E News, “Texas’ top oil and gas regulator is cruising to a re-election win next week despite looming questions surrounding her ties to the energy companies she oversees. Christi Craddick, the Republican chairwoman of the Texas Railroad Commission, is seeking a second six-year term against Democrat Roman McAllen, a first-time candidate short of funds. If Craddick clinches the seat, she’ll continue to helm one of the most powerful regulatory agencies in the state that’s been dogged for years by ethical questions. The case is unusual even in Texas, where voters tend to overlook entanglements that might not pass muster in other states. Craddick and her father, Tom Craddick, a powerful Republican state legislator, have long-standing business relationships with oil companies. And Christi Craddick has voted in several cases before the commission that affected either her or her father’s interests, according to news reports by the Austin American-Statesman and Austin TV station KXAN. Although those reports don’t appear to have dented Craddick’s chances at re-election, much of her business involvement with the oil industry wouldn’t be allowed in other states like Oklahoma and Georgia that have rules aimed at preventing conflicts of interest.” [E&E News, 11/1/18 (=)]

 

The Stakes Of State Energy Ballot Fights. According to Axios, “In next week’s midterm elections, Arizona and Nevada voters will decide on ballot measures that would require electric utilities to invest in renewable and clean energy sources. If passed, these initiatives would work toward statewide goals of 50% renewable energy use by 2030. Why it matters: According to a special report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Oct. 8, stringent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are needed to prevent potentially catastrophic impacts if the climate warms above 1.5 degrees Celsius. State and federal legislation is essential to reaching this global climate target. To meet the goals outlined in the IPCC report, global industries — especially energy, construction and transportation — must make ‘unprecedented’ changes to how they operate. In the U.S., this means increasing investment in renewable energy systems. The current, relatively low price of fossil fuels increases the need for legislation to trigger investment in renewables, since shareholders often focus on near-term financial returns. But some major companies with longer-term horizons have begun to lead the charge, with Google and Facebook both investing in renewable energy and integrating climate goals into their business models. Reality check: Only 4 states have energy-focused ballot initiatives, and energy continues to be a relatively unimportant issue for voters, ranking behind the economy, security, health care and education. But to address energy-driven environmental challenges, local, state, federal and even international authorities need to be aligned in pursuing climate-positive policies.” [Axios, 11/1/18 (+)]

 

Energy Industry Donors Favor GOP. According to Axios, "Axios data wiz Harry Stevens has an informative feature that closely tracks the congressional contributions of 495 of the country’s largest companies — including firms in the oil and power space. The big picture: The story shows how the petroleum and coal industries (a rough proxy for ‘energy’ in the chart above) heavily favor the GOP, while the utility sector leans Republican too but spreads its money somewhat more evenly. Why it matters: America’s wealthy companies are able to influence elections by financially supporting candidates whose positions align with their values — or who they believe can help their businesses. But even more often, they support both sides, ensuring access to whomever ends up in power. By the numbers: Employees and PACs affiliated with Fortune 500 companies have given more than $180 million to congressional candidates in the 2017–2018 campaign cycle. Republican candidates received nearly $93 million, or 52% of the Fortune 500’s spending. About $86 million, or 48%, went to Democrats. The energy sector, which includes fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron, gave more than four-fifths of its $8.5 million in contributions to Republicans. But the technology sector gave about three-quarters of its $17.7 million to Democrats. The largest overall contributor, Google’s parent Alphabet, gave about 86% of its $4.7 million to Democrats." [Axios, 11/1/18 (+)]

 

GOP Ad Flips The Climate Script In Florida. According to Axios, “Things have turned upside down in the closely-watched House race on the tip of Florida: Republicans are running an advertisement alleging that Democratic candidate Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is beholden to ‘dirty coal money’ and is blocking action on climate change, Amy reports. Why it matters: The ad shows how climate change is becoming a political concern for the GOP in a district experiencing the real-world effects of it through more frequent flooding. It’s also one of the starkest examples of how climate and environmental issues are resonating a bit more this election than previous ones. Driving the news: The race at hand is the swing district currently represented by 2-term Republican Congressman Carlos Curbelo, who has parted from most of his GOP colleagues to introduce legislation taxing carbon emissions. Polling shows the race between him and Mucarsel-Powell is a toss-up. The details: A narrator in the ad, sponsored by the National Republican Congressional Committee, says Mucarsel-Powell’s campaign is ‘flooded with dirty coal money. The very polluters that threaten our way of life in the Keys.’ His voice is set against a CNN article headline: ‘The Florida Keys...at risk...as a result of climate change.’ Reality check: The ad doesn’t specify what ‘coal money’ Mucarsel-Powell is tied to. It could be referring to money that billionaire activist Tom Steyer made years ago in hedge funds that invested in coal, according to the NRCC website. But that’s a stretch at best. Steyer is not affiliated with that hedge fund anymore, and he’s an ardent environmentalist opposed to all fossil fuels.” [Axios, 11/1/18 (+)]

 

Judiciary & Legal

 

Supreme Court

 

Key Washington Court Stays In Democrats' Hands Despite GOP Gains. According to Politico, “The Supreme Court may have swung to the right with the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh, but just a few blocks away, the nation’s second-highest court is still firmly in the hands of liberal judges who are likely to have the last word in deciding the fate of many of President Donald Trump’s regulatory rollbacks. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is the main venue for the legal battles over federal regulations ranging from those dealing with energy and environmental issues to technology and workplace safety policies — and seven of its 11 seats are held by Democratic appointees who will play a major role weighing many of the Trump administration’s actions. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been successfully pushing conservative judges through the Senate, with 29 of Trump’s appointees to the appellate courts and more then 50 of his district court judges approved to lifetime positions. But the D.C. Circuit’s balance looks unlikely to change significantly in the coming years. Despite its stature as the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court reviews only a few cases each year from the D.C. Circuit. Over the past 10 full terms, the high court has taken an average of just three appeals annually from the D.C. Circuit, according to statistics compiled by the website SCOTUSblog. The D.C. Circuit rules on dozens of regulatory issues both sweeping and narrow each year, so it ends up writing the bread-and-butter opinions that guide the vast majority of federal rulemakings.” [Politico, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

Feds Are 'Trying To Silence' The Kids Suing The Trump Administration Over Global Warming. According to CNN, “The ‘climate kids’ were back on the steps of a federal courthouse in Oregon on Monday. But their case against the United States government, alleging violations of their constitutional rights to a safe and livable atmosphere in the face of runaway global warming, has dragged on for so long without a trial that some of them aren’t exactly kids anymore. When the case was filed on their behalf in August 2015, Levi Draheim, the youngest plaintiff, was 8. Now he’s 11. He’s had to grow up considerably in those three years. ‘I am a kid, and so I’m very impatient -- and I’m impatient for a very good reason,’ Levi said at a courthouse rally on Monday, his shock of sun-bleached hair barely peeking above a wooden podium. He spoke from a jotted list of notes, not from a script. ‘I live on a barrier island, and I have seen the sea level rise maps. I have personally had to evacuate my home because of hurricanes. I have seen fish kills on my beach, and I have seen changing weather -- more and more hot days. That’s why it’s so important to move forward with this trial.’ The now slightly less young plaintiffs had expected to be inside the federal court on Monday -- not outside on the steps in the rain, holding black umbrellas and protest signs that said things like ‘Let the youth be heard’ and ‘Give science its day in court.’” [CNN, 10/30/18 (+)]

 

Energy, Industry, & Finance

 

Oil & Gas

 

Shell Reports $5.6 Billion In Q3 Profits. According to Axios, “Shell’s profit surged to $5.6 billion in the third quarter, up from $4.1 billion in the same period last year, the oil-and-gas giant announced today. Why it matters: The haul is the latest sign of how the rise in crude oil prices is boosting the fortunes of the industry, although Shell didn’t hit analysts’ forecasts. Shell said higher oil, gas and LNG prices, as well as money from its gas trading unit, were behind the rise. But those gains were partly offset by factors including lower margins in refining and ‘adverse currency exchange effects.’ Where it stands: The company used the report to say it’s rewarding investors by increasing its share buybacks to $2.5 billion between now and late January. That’s up from $2 billion in the prior phase of the program that envisions $25 billion in buybacks by the end of 2020. What’s next: Exxon and Chevron, the largest U.S.-based majors, will report their Q3 results on Friday morning.” [Axios, 11/1/18 (=)]

 

Transitions

 

US On Pace For Record Coal Retirements In 2018, IEEFA Finds. According to Utility Dive, “U.S. power providers will close more coal-fired generation capacity in 2018 than any year before, according to research released last week by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), a clean energy think tank. The U.S. will retire 15.4 GW of coal capacity this year, IEEFA reported, representing 44 generation units across 22 plants. By 2024, an additional 21.4 GW of coal capacity will go offline, and that number will likely rise as generators announce more retirements. IEEFA expects the 2018 retirements to ‘easily’ surpass the current record of 14.7 GW of coal retirements, set in 2015. The U.S. still has 246 GW of coal capacity online, and announced retirements through 2024 represent about 15% of that operating fleet.” [Utility Dive, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

U.S. Sustainable-Investing Holdings Grow To $12T. According to E&E News, “More than a quarter of U.S. assets under professional management used sustainable-investing strategies as of the beginning of 2018, a 38 percent increase from two years earlier, according to a new report. Sustainable, responsible or impact-investments climbed by more than $3 trillion to hit almost $12 trillion, the Washington-based Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment, known as US SIF, said yesterday in a report. More asset managers built environmental, social and governance analysis into their investments, and more shunned firearms holdings, US SIF said. ‘We’re seeing more demand for sustainable and responsible investing, and more individual issues gaining attention, such as climate risk, board issues, tobacco and transparency,’ said Meg Voorhees, research director for US SIF. ‘The institutional portion, in particular, has grown.’ Money managers for institutional investors control about $8.6 trillion of the socially responsible assets, while about $3 trillion is overseen for individual and retail investors, according to the study. Since US SIF began tracking the data in 1995, sustainable and responsible investment assets have had a compound annual growth rate of 13.6 percent.” [E&E News, 11/1/18 (=)]

 

'Why Is Your Trade Association Fighting Moves To Tackle Climate Change?' Investors Ask Companies. According to Forbes, “There has long been a suspicion among investors and environmental groups that even companies that profess their support for moves to tackle climate change in public are, behind the scenes, quietly lobbying for the exact opposite, either individually or through their trade associations. But, increasingly, for companies doing this, there is nowhere to hide. Now a group of investors representing assets of $2 trillion has written to 55 companies challenging their approach to climate lobbying. The letter was sent to some of the world’s largest companies in the Automotive, Chemicals, Food and Beverages, Industrials, Mining and Metals, Oil and Gas, Transportation and Utilities sectors. Among the companies targeted by investors including the Church of England Pensions Board and Swedish Pension Fund AP7 were pretty much every European carmaker, including BMW, VW, Renault, Fiat Chrysler, PSA, Volvo and Daimler. Among the companies in other sectors were Rio Tinto, BP, Total, Shell, Rolls Royce, Siemens, Nestle and Unilever, and the group has warned that it may file shareholder resolutions later this year. The move comes after a leaked document suggested that BusinessEurope, a large confederation representing trade bodies across the EU, was planning to ‘oppose’ greater EU ambition on climate policy. The investors urged the companies to urgently align their approach to corporate climate lobbying with Paris Agreement goals, following warning in a recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warning that the world is on course for 3°C of global warming.” [Forbes, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

Environmental Action

 

Allies

 

LCV Fund Ups Investments Ahead Of Vote. According to Politico, “LCV Victory Fund announced late last night it expects to invest more than $80 million in total for the 2018 election cycle, across federal and state-level elections. That number is far higher than the initial $60 million investment across various programs and entities it had originally projected. The new total is also almost double the $45 million LCV Victory Fund invested in the 2016 cycle. The increase ‘reflects an expansion into more House races, more local races, and an unprecedented level of support and enthusiasm for contributions to pro-environmental candidates,’ according to a memo outlining the spending.” [Politico, 11/1/18 (=)]

 

Groups Threaten To Sue EPA For Not Banning Paint Stripper Chemical. According to The Hill, “A coalition of organizations is formally threatening to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for not banning a toxic chemical used in paint strippers. Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement and Earthjustice said Wednesday that the EPA is obligated to ban the use of methylene chloride, but it has not yet taken action to do so. The EPA proposed a ban in January 2017, under former President Obama. And while former EPA head Scott Pruitt promised to move forward with the ban earlier this year, the agency has not released a final version of the regulation. In the meantime, eight major home improvement and auto parts retailers have taken their own actions to stop selling products containing methylene chloride. ‘Since EPA proposed its methylene chloride ban, four American families have lost loved ones. In light of the Trump EPA’s continued failure to act, retailers are stepping up and taking action to protect their customers from this dangerous chemical,’ Liz Hitchcock, director of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, said in a statement. ‘EPA must follow the home improvement industry’s lead and ban these deadly paint removers from store shelves and workplaces nationwide.’” [The Hill, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

Q&A: How One Scientist Convinces Skeptics That Faith And Climate Action Aren't At Odds. According to NBC, “Climate science and Christian fundamentalism might not seem to go together, with a recent poll showing that only 28 percent of white evangelicals believe Earth is warming because of human activity. But Katherine Hayhoe says it’s never been a problem for her. An evangelical Christian and director of Texas Tech University’s Climate Science Center in Lubbock, Hayhoe calls science and religion ‘two sides of the same coin.’ She’s made it her mission to advocate for climate action without alienating people who might be unreceptive to scientific explanations for climate change because of their beliefs. Hayhoe came to prominence in 2016, when she hosted a televised discussion about climate change with President Obama and actor/climate activist Leonardo DiCaprio. More recently, she was profiled in ‘Let Science Speak,’ a new six-part documentary that can be viewed on YouTube and on the project’s website. To learn more about Hayhoe’s views on the intersection of climate science and religion, NBC News MACH spoke with Hayhoe before the documentary’s Sept. 20 premiere at the Tribeca TV Festival in New York City.” [NBC, 10/30/18 (+)]

 

Opposition

 

The Heartland Institute's Comment, Submitted To The EPA, On The Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule. According to The Heartland Institute, “The Clean Power Plan is unjustified because the scientific evidence strongly contradicts global warming alarmism. For example, in 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) First Assessment Report predicted 0.3 degrees Celsius warming each decade for the ensuing century.[1] Skeptical scientists predicted just 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade and were vilified for their assessment. Now, 30 years later, temperatures have warmed at just 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade.[2] This is less than half what IPCC predicted and almost exactly what skeptics predicted. The United Nations predicted more than twice as much (230 percent) warming than actually occurred. The United Nations has already conceded much of its error, now predicting merely 0.2 degrees Celsius warming per decade – which would be meeting skeptics in the middle. Even that new prediction is likely to prove wrong, as temperatures continue to rise at merely 0.13C per decade, which is the same pace that occurred during the first half of the twentieth century, even before coal power plants and SUVs. Skeptics are being vindicated with every new global temperature update. To the extent the long-term moderate warming trend continues, it is bringing with it strong net benefits. Warmer temperatures and more atmospheric carbon dioxide are creating ideal plant and crop conditions. NASA satellite instruments have documented a remarkable greening of the earth in recent decades.[3] Deserts are shrinking, giving way to grasslands and savannahs. Forests are experiencing tremendous foliage increases. The earth is a greener place thanks to [natural] global warming.” [The Heartland Institute, 10/31/18 (-)]

 

Climate Change & Weather

 

Research & Analysis

 

Waters Are Heating Up Far Faster Than Expected. According to E&E News, “The ocean is warming much faster than previously thought, new research has found, suggesting that global climate goals may be even harder to reach. The new study published yesterday in the journal Nature concluded that the global oceans may be absorbing up to 60 percent more heat since the 1990s than older estimates had found. Previous estimates from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that the oceans were taking up around 8 zetajoules of energy each year. That’s an ‘8’ followed by a whopping 21 zeros. The new research, though, put it at around 13 zetajoules. For comparison, total energy consumption around the world is around half a zetajoule annually, according to the International Energy Agency. This suggests that the Earth, as a whole, is more sensitive to climate change than previous estimates would imply. And that means the planet may respond more strongly to future greenhouse gas emissions than expected. ‘For a given level of emissions, the Earth has warmed more than we thought,’ said lead study author Laure Resplandy, an ocean and climate expert at Princeton University. ‘For the same amount of emissions, some of the heat is going into the ocean, so we missed it, kind of.’” [E&E News, 11/1/18 (=)]

 

Startling New Research Finds Large Buildup Of Heat In The Oceans, Suggesting A Faster Rate Of Global Warming. According to The Washington Post, “The world’s oceans have been soaking up far more excess heat in recent decades than scientists realized, suggesting that Earth could be set to warm even faster than predicted in the years ahead, according to new research published Wednesday. Over the past quarter-century, Earth’s oceans have retained 60 percent more heat each year than scientists previously had thought, said Laure Resplandy, a geoscientist at Princeton University who led the startling study published Wednesday in the journal Nature. The difference represents an enormous amount of additional energy, originating from the sun and trapped by Earth’s atmosphere — the yearly amount representing more than eight times the world’s annual energy consumption. In the scientific realm, the new findings help resolve long-running doubts about the rate of the warming of the oceans before 2007, when reliable measurements from devices called ‘Argo floats’ were put to use worldwide. Before that, differing types of temperature records — and an overall lack of them — contributed to murkiness about how quickly the oceans were heating up. … ‘We thought that we got away with not a lot of warming in both the ocean and the atmosphere for the amount of CO2 that we emitted,’ said Resplandy, who published the work with experts from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and several other institutions in the United States, China, France and Germany. ‘But we were wrong. The planet warmed more than we thought. It was hidden from us just because we didn’t sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already.’” [The Washington Post, 10/31/18 (+)]

 

Extreme Weather

 

Study: Freak Summer Weather And Wild Jet-Stream Patterns Are On The Rise Because Of Global Warming. According to The Washington Post, “In many ways, the summer of 2018 marked a turning point, when the effects of climate change — perhaps previously on the periphery of public consciousness — suddenly took center stage. Record high temperatures spread all over the Northern Hemisphere. Wildfires raged out of control. And devastating floods were frequent. Michael Mann, climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, along with colleagues, has published a new study that connects these disruptive weather extremes with a fundamental change in how the jet stream is behaving during the summer. Linked to the warming climate, the study suggests this change in the atmosphere’s steering current is making these extremes occur more frequently, with greater intensity, and for longer periods of time. The study projects this erratic jet-stream behavior will increase in the future, leading to more severe heat waves, droughts, fires and floods. The jet stream is changing not only because the planet is warming up but also because the Arctic is warming faster than the mid-latitudes, the study says. The jet stream is driven by temperature contrasts, and these contrasts are shrinking. The result is a slower jet stream with more wavy peaks and troughs that Mann and his study co-authors ascribe to a process known as ‘quasi-resonant amplification.’” [The Washington Post, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

Misc. Opinion Pieces

 

Op-Ed: We Have To Save The Planet. So I’m Donating $1 Billion. According to an op-ed by Hansjörg Wyss in The New York Times, “Plant and animal species are estimated to be disappearing at a rate 1,000 times faster than they were before humans arrived on the scene. Climate change is upending natural systems across the planet. Forests, fisheries and drinking water supplies are imperiled as extractive industries chew further into the wild. … For my part, I have decided to donate $1 billion over the next decade to help accelerate land and ocean conservation efforts around the world, with the goal of protecting 30 percent of the planet’s surface by 2030. This money will support locally led conservation efforts around the world, push for increased global targets for land and ocean protection, seek to raise public awareness about the importance of this effort, and fund scientific studies to identify the best strategies to reach our target. I believe this ambitious goal is achievable because I’ve seen what can be accomplished. Indigenous peoples, local leaders and conservation groups around the world are already busy setting aside protected areas that reflect the conservation, economic and cultural values of nearby communities. Financial support from philanthropists and governments is critical to helping these leaders conserve places like the coral reefs of the Caribbean, the glaciers of Argentina and what is known as the ‘place of many elephants’ in Zimbabwe.” [The New York Times, 10/31/18 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: RGGI Carbon Pricing Generates Array Of Economic Benefits. According to an op-ed by Hal Harvey, Robbie Orvis, and Jeffrey Rissman in Northeast Energy News, “RGGI covers the electricity sector CO2 emissions in nine eastern American states. A key highlight is the program’s early embrace of auctioning as the main method of distributing allowances. RGGI was the first program to fully auction allowances, illustrating the economic benefits that can be created by smart investment of auction revenue. Revenue generated by RGGI has funded energy efficiency improvements, which have created an array of economic benefits, starting with consumer savings of more than $618 million, and spending of extra disposable income from energy efficiency and local clean energy investments has generated more than $2.9 billion in additional economic growth. Public health benefits worth $5.7 billion are estimated to have come from reductions in fine particles and smog-causing emission, which are co-benefits of lowered carbon emissions. Time and again, modeling in advance of cap setting has resulted in business- as-usual emissions that are higher than the real-world result, and RGGI is an example of the problems with using this approach. As a result of basing allowances on a forecasted emission scenario, RGGI has wrestled with over-allocation. Despite the governance challenges in a linked system, RGGI has been regularly tightened to deal with this oversupply. In addition to the cap adjustments discussed later, RGGI has established a regular four-year program review and recalibration process.” [Northeast Energy News, 10/31/18 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: Congress Has No Clue What Americans Want. According to an op-ed by Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, Matto Mildenberger and Leah Stokes in The New York Times, “In a research paper, we compared their responses with our best guesses of what the public in their districts or states actually wanted using large-scale public opinion surveys and standard models. Across the board, we found that congressional aides are wildly inaccurate in their perceptions of their constituents’ opinions and preferences. … On climate change, the average aide thought only a minority of his or her district wanted action, when in truth a majority supported regulating carbon. Across the five issues, Democratic staff members tended to be more accurate than Republicans. Democrats guessed about 13 points closer to the truth on average than Republicans. … Aides usually assumed that the public agreed with their own policy views. If an aide did not personally support acting on climate change, he or she was less likely to think that constituents wanted action. This self-centered bias is common in other areas of life — we all tend to think that other people share our preferences. But we aren’t all charged with understanding what the public wants to ensure democratic representation. Interest groups also played an important role in explaining congressional staffs’ errors. Aides who reported meeting with groups representing big business — like the United States Chamber of Commerce or the American Petroleum Institute — were more likely to get their constituents’ opinions wrong compared with staffers who reported meeting with mass membership groups that represented ordinary Americans, like the Sierra Club or labor unions. The same pattern holds for campaign contributions: The more that offices get support from fossil fuel companies over environmental groups, the more they underestimate state- or district-level support for climate action.” [The New York Times, 10/31/18 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: Big Oil Is Sloshing A Crude Tsunami Across The Country. According to an op-ed by Bill McKibben in The Washington Post, “In the wake of the devastating new climate report — and of devastating hurricanes, droughts and floods — the oil industry has been making a few small noises about how it might want to change its course. BP’s chief executive, for instance, recently called for a ‘different, more innovative, collaborative path’; Exxon won widespread coverage for setting aside $500,000 each of the next two years to support some kind of carbon tax. In case you were wondering, these apparent concessions turn out to be green wash and hooey — all the proof you need can be found in the spending reports on some of the most important ballot measures around the country. Forget the blue wave: Big Oil is sloshing a crude tsunami across the country instead, and in the process trying to bury some of the most innovative ideas for energy progress. In Washington state, for instance, Measure 1631 offers one of the first serious plans for a price on carbon. Drawn up by a wide coalition of groups from across the state, it calls for a modest tax to be used for renewable energy development. It’s drawn support even from the local business community. A Seattle entrepreneur named, um, Bill Gates, for instance, backed the proposed law, calling climate change ‘the toughest problem humanity has ever faced.’” [The Washington Post, 10/30/18 (+)]

 

Op-Ed: How Greens Humiliate Themselves. According to an op-ed by Holman Jenkins Jr. in The Wall Street Journal, “Presume for a moment the accusations against Exxon are accurate. Then greens should actually be glad because Exxon has spared them future embarrassment when the company is forced to increase the recorded value of its assets to account for the failure of green politics to deliver the expected carbon regulations. Words are challenged to express how laughable this case is. Before getting lost in distinctions that Exxon internally draws (and the attorney general muddles) between project-specific costs and policies that would suppress demand for fossil fuels generally, let’s remember a few things. Like all businesses, Exxon seeks to take only those risks that will pay off, and has every incentive to anticipate future regulatory costs correctly. The attorney general’s office and its green backers have an entirely different purpose: They want Exxon to use its internal disciplines to prevent oil and gas development even if it would pay off. The mood ring the greens are wearing is not a pretty color. They can’t enact meaningful curbs through the political process. They failed to use the courts to hold Exxon and others liable for global warming, never mind that the damages they sought would have been paid by producing more oil and gas (and therefore more greenhouse gases).” [The Wall Street Journal, 10/31/18 (-)]

 

An Illogical Reason Not To Vote. According to The New Republic, “The midterm elections next week could be the most consequential in modern U.S. history. But a staggering number of young people aren’t planning to vote in them. To figure out why, New York magazine interviewed 12 conscious non-voters ranging in age from 21 to 29 years old, and published the results on Tuesday. They were not well-received. Most of the voters’ explanations read like lazy excuses (or excuses for laziness). ‘I had a hectic schedule,’ said Laura, 21, on why she didn’t register to vote. ‘I just didn’t have the time and energy.’ Some said they didn’t know enough about political issues to feel confident casting a vote. Others said they weren’t sure how to register or vote in the first place. The most disheartening response, however, was from Adam, a 25-year-old former Bernie Sanders volunteer who is registered to vote and knowledgable about politics. The issue, he said, is that mainstream Democrats aren’t ‘exciting.’ And Adam doesn’t believe most Democratic Party politicians will make any difference in solving the problems he cares about—specifically, climate change. ‘I look at it this way,’ Adam said. ‘That report just came out the other day about global warming, talking about how we have 12 years, until 2030, for this radical change unlike the world has ever seen. And The Hill newspaper just put out that article about how the DNC does not plan on making climate change a big part of their platform, even still.’ ‘I just do not understand why I would vote for a party that doesn’t care about me in any way,’ he added. ‘They can say, ‘Sure, we’ll lower student interest rates.’ Well, I don’t give a shit about student interest rates if I’m not going to live past 13 more years on this planet.’” [The New Republic, 10/31/18 (+)]

 

State & Local News

 

Arizona

 

Rally For Climate Change On The Courthouse Lawn. According to Arizona Daily Sun, “Children of all ages protested Monday morning on the courthouse lawn in downtown Flagstaff. Area students from Marshall Elementary and Flagstaff Junior Academy gathered to protest what would have been the opening day of the historic Juliana v. United States court case. Twenty-one youth plaintiffs are taking the federal government to court for violating their constitutional rights by knowingly contributing to climate change.” [Arizona Daily Sun, 10/30/18 (+)]

 

Florida

 

Florida Heat Is Already Hard On Outdoor Workers. Climate Change Will Raise Health Risks. According to Miami Herald, “Harvesting crops or building a house in the Florida sun is grueling work, and a new report shows that it’ll only get more miserable and unsafe for workers as climate change sends temperatures soaring. By at least one safety standard, it was too hot for Floridians to do very heavy labor (like digging with a shovel) for at least an hour a day almost every single day this summer. Unworkable, a report from Public Citizen and the Farmworker Association of Florida released Tuesday, spells out the risks to the state’s large population of outdoor workers, particularly construction and agricultural workers. The Sunshine State has one of the highest rates of heat-related hospitalizations in the nation, according to the report. That number is likely an undercount, since strokes, heart attacks, asthma and even mental illnesses can be aggravated by high heat. ‘You talk to farmworkers and they know it’s getting hotter. They feel it and they’re worried,’ said Jeannie Economos, the environmental health project coordinator for the Farmworker Association of Florida.” [Miami Herald, 10/31/18 (+)]

 

Maine

 

LePage Environmental Chief To Retire. According to E&E News, “Maine Republican Gov. Paul LePage says his environmental chief will be retiring. LePage said Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Paul Mercer will retire from state service Nov. 9. Mercer has been head of the department since January 2016. LePage praised Mercer for protecting natural resources while working with businesses to expand Maine’s economy. Deputy DEP Commissioner Melanie Loyzim will serve as acting commissioner. Mercer graduated from Maine Maritime Academy and worked as a marine engineer traveling aboard U.S. merchant vessels. He was a member of the senior management team at Maine Maritime Academy, where he also worked as associate professor and department chairman. LePage said Mercer created a multimedia training program within the department as well as new environmental education curricula for students. He’s also pushed for wastewater treatment infrastructure improvements.” [E&E News, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

Missouri Utility Wins Over Critics With Scaled Back Energy Efficiency Plan. According to Midwest Energy News, “Missouri’s largest utility has reached an agreement with ratepayer and clean energy advocates on a scaled back energy efficiency plan. Ameren Missouri faced criticism this summer for proposing a six-year, $550 million conservation program that critics said didn’t deliver enough benefits to customers. The modified plan, submitted last week to state regulators, calls for spending $227 million over three years, a 16 percent increase compared to the budget of its current three-year program. Geoff Marke, an attorney with the Missouri Office of Public Counsel, called the compromise ‘a reasonable path forward. I do think it’s better than what was initially proposed.’ Marke objected to the scale of the initial vision, and the fact that it would not have saved ratepayers from the cost of new generation until at least 2034. In the face of stagnant demand for electricity, Ameren has more than enough generation capacity for years to come. The new benefits, which would take effect in February 2019, actually decreases spending for residential programs by 17 percent but increases projected energy savings by 40 percent to 800,000 MWh over three years. ‘We feel that is very significant,’ said Andrew Linhares, an attorney with Renew Missouri, a nonprofit that advocates for clean energy and took part in negotiations. The plan includes some significant additions, most notably $20 million in benefits aimed at low-income households in single-family homes.Although most of the program’s features will run for three years, benefits for low-income customers would continue for six years.” [Midwest Energy News, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

Virginia

 

Virginia Advances Stricter Carbon Emissions Cap Rule. According to Utility Dive, “The Virginia Air Pollution Control Board is moving forward with a rule to limit carbon dioxide emissions from the state’s power plants, ultimately working to make the state join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). As part of the state’s efforts to control emissions from the energy sector, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is considering an initial carbon base budget of 28 million tons beginning in 2020 — more stringent than the 33 millions tons that was considered last year. After the first year, annual CO2 budgets will decline 3% annually. Virginia is not the only new state looking to join RGGI, the regional cap-and-trade system focused largely in the Northeast. New Jersey is also working to rejoin the collective after former Gov. Chris Christie withdrew the state in 2012. Observers say both states are on track to begin participating in 2020.” [Utility Dive, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

In Virginia’s Coal Country, A Democratic Challenger Makes His Case To Trump Voters. According to The Washington Post, “Retired coal miner Dean Vance voted for Donald Trump, thinks the president is doing a good job and believes coal will make a comeback. But to represent him in Congress, Vance, 62, is supporting a Democrat: Anthony Flaccavento, who is running a long-shot campaign to unseat a Republican incumbent in one of the reddest districts anywhere. Virginia’s 9th District is in the far southwest, the Appalachian toe of the state. Trump won the district by 41 points in 2016, and Rep. H. Morgan Griffith won his fourth term that year by more than 39 percentage points. This year, Flaccavento is among a subset of Democrats trying to reconnect with voters in largely rural areas. Unlike the anti-Trump ‘resisters’ in other parts of Virginia and the country, these Democrats are attempting to blur the partisan divide and make a populist appeal to voters who feel disaffected.” [The Washington Post, 10/31/18 (+)]

 

Washington

 

Big Oil Outspends Billionaires In Washington State Carbon Tax Fight. According to Reuters, “The U.S. oil industry has spent a record $30 million to fight a ballot measure in Washington state that would create the nation’s first carbon tax, double what an alliance of green groups and billionaire activists has spent to support it, according to state data reviewed by Reuters. The big-ticket battle reflects the stakes of climate regulation. The oil industry is worried that new curbs on carbon emissions will hobble business, while environmental advocates are concerned that a failure to act soon to halt global warming will spell devastating consequences for the planet. Washington is the nation’s fifth biggest fuel-producing state, with five refineries, according to the Energy Information Administration. It is also among several Democrat-led states that have vowed to pursue climate action in defiance of President Donald Trump’s agenda to ease regulation on fossil fuel companies. The state’s Carbon Emissions Fee and Revenue Allocation Initiative, known as Initiative 1631, would impose a $15 fee on each metric ton of carbon released to the atmosphere, rising $2 a year until the state’s 2035 emissions target is met. It would generate $2.3 billion over five years for clean energy and air programs if it is passed by voters in next week’s election, according to a state analysis. The measure is on the ballot for the Nov. 6 elections. A Crosscut/Elway poll this month showed half of voters approve of the initiative, with 36 percent against and 14 percent undecided.” [Reuters, 10/31/18 (=)]

 

Big Oil Is Exploiting Latinos In Washington State With Misleading Advertising. According to The Stranger, “What the fuck are the petroleum companies behind the No on 1631 campaign even doing? The carbon fee on Washington’s ballot, Initiative 1631, is one of the most hotly contested races for this midterm election season. Big Oil is scared that Washington is going to pass I-1631. Petroleum companies from all over the country have been dumping money into the campaign. They’ve also been spending that money dubiously. This weekend, No on 1631 sent out a mailed advertisement to Spanish speakers across Washington state. It contained a list of Latino businesses who were opposed to the carbon fee, who were in favor of No on 1631. Most of those businesses had no idea their names were on that list. ‘Most campaigns don’t even bother reaching out to Latino voters,’ said Peter Bloch Garcia, executive director of the Latino Community Fund. ‘But because we’ve been organizing for years, front and center, and taking a strong position in support of 1631 they are explicitly targeting us. I have never in my life in Washington seen a targeted mailer like this that has exploited our community.’” [The Stranger, 10/30/18 (+)]

 

Wisconsin

 

Wis. Governor Tied With Pro-Climate Challenger In Polling. According to E&E News, “Will next week’s Wisconsin gubernatorial election be a climate change referendum on Gov. Scott Walker? The two-term Republican and former presidential candidate is closely aligned with the national climate skeptics movement and has virtually shut down his administration’s ability to examine the problem. His Democratic opponent, Tony Evers, offers a different vision for the Badger State. He has identified climate change as a top environmental priority and has publicly supported the U.S. Climate Alliance, a group of 17 governors who have pledged to advance the goals of the Paris climate agreement. Evers also says he will make renewable energy a priority. The candidates are deadlocked in the latest Marquette University poll, released yesterday, with each garnering 47 percent of likely voters. Just 1 percent of the electorate is undecided. … Climate has not been a high-profile issue in Wisconsin this year, with health care and job creation dominating the headlines. But in a debate last Friday, the candidates fielded a Twitter-delivered question seeking detailed responses to how they would mitigate the effects of climate change. Evers responded first, saying he would restore climate science as a priority within agencies like the Department of Natural Resources. Walker effectively muzzled DNR scientists from talking about climate change in 2016 and had the agency remove all references on its website linking climate change to man-made causes. ‘We’re going to bring back science to the state of Wisconsin,’ said Evers. ‘The vast majority of people in the state of Wisconsin — or scientists — understand that climate change, not only do we believe in it, it’s here and we’re seeing it almost daily across this country playing out,’ he added.” [E&E News, 11/1/18 (=)]

 

 

 

 

Please do not respond to this email.

If you have questions or comments please contact mitch@beehivedc.com