Daily on Energy: Clean energy advocates make their push while Trump’s away

Ongoing RFS warfare: The lobbying campaign comes after weeks of pro-ethanol lawmakers and industry officials putting immense pressure on Pruitt to not move forward with a proposal that would look to reduce the annual targets under the biofuel program, in which both Democrats and Republicans oppose.

The RFS requires refiners to blend increasing amounts of renewable fuels, primarily ethanol, into the nation’s gasoline and diesel supplies, with a goal of 36 billion gallons blended annually by 2022.  

Pruitt’s promise: Even though Pruitt assured the pro-ethanol camp that he wouldn’t cut the targets, that doesn’t mean the game is over. Last week a bipartisan letter to Pruitt signed by six dozen House members pointed out the harm that blending ethanol has caused and that he should not give up on proposals to rein in the program.

Ad buy: RFS supporters with the large umbrella group Fuels America started an advertising campaign Monday morning on the Fox News channel that aims to show Trump’s support for the RFS both before and after he became commander in chief.

Refiners attacking Trump’s promise: The ad urges viewers to thank Trump “for standing up to refiners who have attacked the White House for its support of clean, affordable fuel options for American drivers.”

The irony of monopoly: Jeff Broin, CEO of POET, one of the largest ethanol producers in the country, said it is “ironic to hear refinery owners complain about competition while posting soaring profits from high-priced gasoline sales during the hurricanes.”

Independent refiners want the RFS significantly changed, complaining that the program places them at a significant disadvantage by forcing them to buy increasingly expensive RFS credits that hurt their bottom lines.  

Protect what is homegrown: “Their demands to scrap the RFS to protect their virtual monopoly on America’s fuel supply just demonstrates why it’s so important for us to protect the growth of homegrown biofuels,” Broin said. “The RFS is America’s most successful energy policy. It has created hundreds of thousands of jobs, cut prices for consumers, and dramatically reduced U.S. dependence on foreign oil.”

America’s footprint: America will not be totally absent at the summit in Germany. The White House sent Thomas Shannon, a career State Department diplomat, as its chief representative. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has led a deregulatory agenda minimizing the impact of climate change, will not attend the conference. Some of his staff members will be present.

A U.S. delegation of governors, mayors and private-sector officials are attending the conference to show their commitment to combating climate change.

‘Totally isolated’: Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House climate adviser, told the Washington Examiner of what he sees as the consequences for the U.S. taking a smaller role in the global response to climate change.

“Trump and the GOP are totally isolated internationally on climate, and are allowing China to fill the void, not just on climate issues, but regarding the massive investment opportunities in clean energy around the world,” Bledsoe said.  “This is a strategic disaster in terms of US economic influence globally vis a vis China, and the administration and Congress don’t seem to care.”

What happens in Bonn: The Bonn conference will mostly serve as a venue for countries in the Paris Agreement — which includes all nations except the U.S. and Syria —  to discuss how to implement it. That includes discussing how to verify whether nations are fulfilling pledges to reduce carbon emissions, and how wealthier countries will compensate poorer ones for climate change adaptation.

China, as the world’s biggest emissions emitter, is positioned to lead that effort.

White House plans to push clean coal, nuke: The Trump administration is planning to use the conference to promote how more efficient use of fossil fuels and nuclear power can help fight climate change, the New York Times reported.

‘What we do’: Energy industry groups say they expect a rush of activity if Congress opens a 1.5 million-acre section of the Alaskan refuge, but the companies themselves are less bullish about their plans.

Some doubt that drilling in the refuge can meet Republicans’ expectations that drilling can raise $1 billion for the government over 10 years, with oil prices hovering around $50 a barrel and competition steep from natural gas in the nation’s shale regions.

“There is a lot of pressure from the shale play and Lower 48, and the price structure currently is not terribly supportive of activities in Alaska because we are a high-cost environment to produce oil,” said Tom Walsh, public affairs chairman and an oil and gas consultant with the Alaska Support Industry Alliance. “But we are an oil and gas resource state. That’s what we do.”

Alaska’s energy needs: Alaskan politicians are especially eager to tap the refuge because oil production in the state has fallen from more than two million barrels per day in the late 1980s to under a half-million barrels per day — a big deal in a state whose government provides residents an annual check from oil revenue.

“Everyone understands ANWR to be the biggest prospective onshore conventional oil field in North America,” said Robert Dillon, an energy consultant and former senior staffer for Murkowski. “There is substantial interest both from Alaskans and energy companies.”

Energy companies non-committal: Yet energy companies that have experience operating in Alaska’s remote, capital-intensive terrain are less direct about their expectations.

ConocoPhillips already has operations in the National Petroleum Reserve, a 23.5-million acre federal land in northwest Alaska set aside for energy development.

“If the 1002 area was authorized for leasing, we would consider it against other opportunities in our portfolio, just as we do with exploration opportunities worldwide,” said Daren Beaudo, director of media relations for ConocoPhillips.

Long-term play: Skeptics say oil prices would have to climb to about $70 per barrel for investments in the refuge to pay off.

Moriarty and the other industry representatives argue that the long leasing and development timeframes for the refuge, with success in Congress still uncertain and litigation likely, mean there is plenty of time for oil prices to recover.

“If ANWR were made available to leasing, you wouldn’t see production for 10 to 15 years,” Moriarty said.

What the switch means: Massachusetts wants to permanently switch to Atlantic Standard Time, which is one hour ahead of Eastern Standard Time. It would not roll back one hour on the first Sunday of November, when daylight saving time ends, nor move the clock ahead one hour in March when it begins.

Won’t go it alone: The Massachusetts commission has just one caveat before the state moves ahead: Nearly all of New England must do it, too.

“Massachusetts should only consider moving to what in essence is year-round daylight saving time if a majority of other Northeast states, also possibly including New York, also do so,” said State Sen. Eileen Donoghue, a Democrat, who headed the commission that the state assembly created to deliberate the issue.

New England cabal growing: But that might not be a big obstacle. Many of the Northeast states already have introduced bills, including Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.

Incentives for all coastal states: Scalise said the bill provides “incentivizes” for offshore energy production by extending revenue-sharing agreements from Alaska to the Atlantic states while raising existing revenue-sharing caps to provide Gulf states such as Scalise’s home state of Louisiana with hundreds of millions in additional dollars to help restore their coasts.

What it does: Revenue sharing allows states with offshore drilling to receive part of the fees and royalties that come from oil and natural gas producers that operate on federal leases. The states are able to receive a percentage of the federal royalties before they go to the Treasury. Gulf states have participated in revenue-sharing agreements for years, and the bill would open up states such as Virginia and New Jersey to receive a portion of the royalties generated from federal leases.

One stop in coal country: “The Trump admin[istration] is holding just a single public hearing on the #CleanPowerPlan, in the heart of WV coal country. That’s not nearly enough,” Schneiderman tweeted.

Critics of the climate change plan point out that the Obama administration had ignored West Virginia when it was vetting the rule. The Clean Power Plan would have led to the premature closure of a number of coal-fired power plants if it were allowed to take effect, with negative consequences for the coal industry in the Mountaineer State, they say.

Could add more states: EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman told the Washington Examiner that other states could be added if the EPA sees enough support for doing so. EPA also extended the comment period on its repeal proposal by 32 days to Jan. 16.

‘No convincing alternative’: “For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence,” the report says.

The comprehensive study of climate science by U.S. government researchers across 13 federal agencies, known as the Climate Science Special Report, is part of a larger scientific review called the fourth National Climate Assessment. It is mandated by Congress to be released every four years.

White House downplays report: The big question is whether the report will cause the administration to take climate change more seriously.

The early signs point to that not being the case.

In a statement, White House principal deputy press secretary Raj Shah said “the climate has changed and is always changing.”

“The administration supports rigorous scientific analysis and debate and encourages public comment on the draft documents being released today,” Shah said.

‘Not holding my breath’: Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy at the Niskanen Center, a free-market think tank, said he doesn’t expect the Trump administration to change its approach.

“This is stuff we know already,” Majkut told the Washington Examiner. “I would like to see it inspire some more consideration of climate risk. But I am not holding my breath. My guess is it’s a relative non-event.”

Indeed, Trump allies even criticized him for permitting the release of the report and suggested he should not respect its findings.

‘Junk science’: “It is unfortunate that the Trump Administration has released these Obama-era climate reports, without attempting to remove the junk science—and the reports are full of junk science,” said Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who led Trump’s EPA transition team. “That career civil servants were allowed to go ahead and finish reports designed to support President Obama’s radical climate agenda show how much work still needs to be done to drain the swamp.”

Biased or balanced? Critics say that means the EPA is biased against science and aims to fill the boards with corporate interests who support Pruitt’s deregulatory agenda.

But Pruitt said the current crop of applicants represents a broader geographic area than in previous boards. He said his goal is to provide more “fulsome” representation on the boards.

How Pruitt’s advisors stack up: Michael Honeycutt, who heads the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s toxicology division, will lead the Scientific Advisory Board. Honeycutt has questioned the health risks associated with smog.

Tony Cox, an independent consultant in quantitative risk analysis, will lead the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. And Paul Gilman, chief sustainability officer at Covanta Energy and a former EPA official under President George W. Bush, will head the Board of Scientific Advisers.