Capitol Light/Climate Politics

Today's ten

The passage of the oddly named Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) took a different approach to moving the nation a sustainable low-carbon economy, as quickly as possible. It is decidedly more carrots than sticks than energy and environment legislation of the past.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are flowing from federal coffers to states, cities, and private sector companies to create a domestic clean energy industry. It appears to be working. Every week announcements of new projects are being made.

Foreign companies are building manufacturing plants throughout the U.S. Tens of thousands of new jobs are being created. The Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, reports that the IRA is not only expected to create at least 1.3 million new jobs by 2030; it has already created more than 142,000 clean energy jobs across the United States.

The IRA is presenting a dilemma for Republican politicians at the national, state, and local levels—many of whom have followed the lead of the former president—Donald Trump—in bad-mouthing climate science and what the transition to a low carbon economy would mean for the health and well-being of the nation. However, it hasn’t stopped them from availing themselves of federal funds to solve a problem they refuse to recognize. In Iowa, Trump called the Green New Deal an atrocity and promised to do something about it in his first day back in the White House.

How long can these deniers and doomsday prophets take with one hand while condemning with the other? Texas Governor Abbott continues to blame solar and wind for any problems and interruptions of electric supplies when the opposite is true.

Forbes reports that without solar, wind, and grid-scale battery storage, Texans would have trouble keeping cool during the hottest days ever recorded. Texas is expecting to receive over $66 billion in IRA funding.

How long will it be before their verbal assaults and deliberate misinformation campaigns are recognized by voters as the lies they are?

A question for another day. Here’s today’s ten.

****

Domesticating the solar industry. Canadian solar panel maker Heliene is planning a major expansion of its U.S. manufacturing operations with a new Minnesota factory that will produce both modules and cells, its chief executive told (Reuters)

A precocious policy. The U.S. climate law that passed one year ago offers a 30 percent discount off this installation via a tax credit, and that’s helping push clean energy even into places where coal still provides cheap electricity. (AP)

Take the money and run—but where to? Although it was drafted and passed exclusively by Democrats in Washington, the fate of the law will hinge in large part on the decisions of state and local Republican officials. green funding is splintering a Republican Party that remains skeptical about renewable energy — and hostile to Biden.

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and U.S. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) are among the GOP officials throwing their weight behind the electric vehicle battery sector. But other Republicans, such as conservatives in the Texas Capitol, are going in the opposite direction, pushing to repeal subsidies for solar and wind projects even though renewable energy has proved essential for the state’s electrical grid. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and senior Republicans on Capitol Hill leadership have pushed for repealing the renewable energy credits in the Inflation Reduction Act — though resistance from members of his caucus whose districts are already benefiting from the credits led him to drop some of those demands.

As the number of proposed renewable energy projects soars, so has the backlash. State and local lawmakers blocked 138 solar and wind projects last year, more than doubling the total of 54 from the year before, according to the Renewable Rejection Database, which tracks local governments’ approvals of renewables. So far this year, state and local governments have rejected more than 70 proposals, the database found. (Washington Post)

You say cut, I say add. House Republican leaders are moving toward deeper cuts in the fiscal 2024 appropriations bills in an effort to win over votes from hardline conservatives as bills start to move to the House floor next week.

A number of Freedom Caucus members and other conservatives have raised objections to the Appropriations Committee's move to allow $115 billion in spending above the fiscal 2022 topline, offset by rescissions of previously appropriated but unspent funding.

With the add-ons, new fiscal 2024 spending would come to $1.586 trillion — still below the caps in the debt ceiling law, but nonetheless a level the conservatives view as unacceptable. By the same token, GOP leaders can't lose support from the more centrist wing of the party on close votes, with most if not all Democrats expected to oppose the bills. 

Senate appropriators, meanwhile, were moving in the opposite direction from their House counterparts. (Roll Call)

Can we afford it? U.S. government agencies are targeting buying 9,500 electric vehicles in the 2023 budget year, but face supply issues and higher costs, a federal report said on Wednesday. (Reuters)

The conservative Club for Growth is pledging to spend $20 million to ensure that the House Republicans who nearly cost House Speaker Kevin McCarthy the speakership stay in their seats. 

Prop ‘em up. Politico obtained a memo from Club for Growth's President David McIntosh informing donors that the group planned to prop up what he's labeling the 'Patriot 20' in both primaries and general elections next year. 

Prominent members of the group include Reps. Lauren Boebert - who nearly lost her 2022 race to Democrat Adam Frisch - Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, freshman lawmaker Anna Paulina Luna, Byron Donalds and Scott Perry, the current chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus. (Daily Mail)

Greed wins. House Republicans are proposing to significantly increase federal spending on earmarks in their Agriculture and Energy-Water bills, even as they seek broad nondefense cuts elsewhere. (E&E News)

If and but. The United States is within reach of cutting its carbon pollution in half by 2035 — if it’s able to install a massive number of renewable energy projects. Or the nation could fall far short of its international climate promises and reduce its emissions by as little as 29 percent in 2030 — if fossil fuel prices remain low, economic growth surges and clean electricity installations stumble, according to a report released Thursday by the Rhodium Group.

Rhodium’s report highlights the climate law’s potential, and its limitations. Most U.S. emissions reductions in the coming years are expected to come from power plants. Planet-warming pollution from the power sector could fall between 45 and 74 percent from current levels by 2035, Rhodium found. That’s owing in large part to passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which contains $369 billion in clean energy incentives and is designed to remove economic barriers for wind and solar facilities. (E&E News)

Stopping the leaks. The Biden administration is doling out up to $1.55 billion in funding to help the oil and gas sector monitor and reduce methane emissions, along with providing technical assistance for companies trying to slash emissions from leaks and daily operations. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy – the latter of which is offering states $350 million to help companies to find and reduce methane emissions from low-producing wells – will invite bids from companies, communities and tribal governments for technology deployment and implementation of the best practices for reducing emissions in the sector. (Reuters) 

Hush up your mouth. Not long ago, the world’s biggest companies were making splashy promises to tackle climate change. Even those in the business of selling fossil fuels — like BP and Shell — were vowing to slash their emissions. Amazon named an iconic Seattle sports center ​“Climate Pledge Arena” so neither hockey nor basketball fans could ignore the company’s promise to zero out its emissions by 2040.

But the past year has brought a change of pace, with BP, Amazon and other companies scaling back some of their targets. Amid this shift, another trend has emerged: Some companies are choosing not to publicize their climate goals, a strategy that’s being called ​“greenhushing.” (Grist)

Image courtesy of bern dittrich and Unsplash