Today’s Key Takeaway: “The 5-4 ruling comes as the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has taken a more skeptical view of the discretion that administrative agencies should have on the rulemaking process, including regulations related to matters on climate and the environment.” Chevron deference decision pending. (What the downfall of Chevron deference would mean for energy and climate regulations)
OHIO VS EPA DECISION: In the first of two consequential decisions with ramifications for environmental and energy policy this morning, the Supreme Court this blocked the Environmental Protection Agency’s “good neighbor” plan, which would have strictly limited ozone pollution from power plants and other industrial sources in 11 states, as well as air pollutants that the agency said can drift downwind into other states and cause additional harm.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
Why this is important: The 5-4 ruling comes as the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has taken a more skeptical view of the discretion that administrative agencies should have on the rulemaking process, including regulations related to matters on climate and the environment.
The backstory: In September 2023, Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia filed an emergency request to the Supreme Court, arguing that the EPA had overstepped its authority in imposing the plan and that it imposed costly and ineffective burdens on their states.
Plaintiffs further argued that the EPA rule should not be enforceable because it relied on the assumption that all 23 states the rule would apply to would participate in the “good neighbor” plan. Read more from Breanne here.
The fallout: Green groups were furious at the high court’s decision, stating the ruling “shows just how radical this court has become.”
“The court is meddling with a rule that would prevent 1,300 Americans from dying prematurely every year from pollution that crosses state borders,” Charles Harper, Evergreen Action’s senior power sector policy lead, said in a written statement. “While we ultimately expect EPA to prevail in court, today’s stay order is a temporary step in the wrong direction.”
On the flipside: Fossil fuel groups cheered the ruling. The American Petroleum Institute released a statement in which Senior Vice President and General Counsel Ryan Meyers called the EPA rule “flawed” and said that the ruling “prevents the risk of electric power outages and crippling delays to industrial supply chains for now.”
Read on for more from the court this morning, and for what is still to come…
ANOTHER MAJOR SCOTUS DECISIONS IMPLICATIONS FOR REGULATORS: The high court ruled this morning in another case with major implications for the EPA and other agencies, issuing a decision that limits the power of agencies to punish law violators via in-house proceedings.
The case, SEC v. Jarkesy, involved a trader accused by the Securities and Exchange Committee of fraud whose case was adjudicated by an administrative law judge. The plaintiff said his 7th Amendment right to a jury trial was violated.
The conservative majority ruled that the agency does not have the right to impose civil penalties without a jury trial. Read more on the decision from our Kaelan Deese here.
What it means: The decision has implications for other agencies that use administrative law judges, such as the EPA and USDA, although the exact ramifications will have to be seen. The majority opinion steered clear of addressing other issues regarding the constitutional limits on ALJs.
In a dissent that was co-signed by the two other liberals on the court, Sotomayor wrote that the decision would entail “chaos” for the government.
For the agencies that rely on ALJs to resolve business, “all the majority can say is tough luck; get a new statute from Congress,” Sotomayor wrote.
STILL TO COME – A CHEVRON DECISION: Still to come from SCOTUS is the highly anticipated case relating to Chevron deference. That could come tomorrow or next week.
House Republicans game out response:A memo sent out Tuesday to members of the Republican Study Committee outlines the congressional implications of a Supreme Court decision to scale back, or even overturn, Chevron deference. Republicans have been steadfast in their advocacy to overturn the doctrine, arguing that it blurs the line on a separation of powers between the branches, and gives agencies the ability to “over-regulate.”
Notable quotable: “Chevron deference has given agencies the ability to regulate on matters where Congress is silent or ambiguous,” the memo reads. “Allowing the agencies to engage in rulemaking beyond Congress’s clear direction conflicts with Article I of the Constitution.”
What their game plan is: If Chevron is weakened or overturned, House Republicans are proposing to reverse the doctrine completely through legislation – a bill from GOP Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, labeled the “Separation of Powers Act.” The bill would codify a post-Chevron doctrine by requiring federal courts to conduct a “de novo review” of any agency action.
House committees are also being ordered to review the Biden administration’s regulations and “highlight any that should be considered for judicial review post-Chevron.”
“House conservative should seek opportunities to advocate for Congress to repeal or defund such regulations,” the memo reads.
The memo also suggests a number of bills that would enact bold regulatory reforms over the executive branch and further clamp down on agencies’ powers. For example, a bill from GOP Rep. Kat Cammack, which had passed the House last year, would require Congress to approve any regulations that have an annual economic impact of $100 million or more.
Reality check: Many of these bills would be, or are already, stalled in the Democratic Senate. Any chance of movement would be predicated on Republicans maintaining the House majority and winning back the Senate and White House.
From the Washington Examiner Daily on Energy, June 27, 2024
Today’s Key Takeaways: Alaska native organizations sue Biden over Pebble Mine pre-emptive veto. Top 7 oil companies. World’s 1st indigenous LNG project. Some AK candidates call it quits.
Two organizations owned primarily by Native Americans are suing the Biden administration for its move to effectively kill a mining project in Alaska.
Iliamna Natives Limited and the Alaska Peninsula Corporation, two organizations that predominantly represent small Native American communities in Alaska, filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. The lawsuit alleges that the EPA overstepped its authority with its January 2023 final decision to essentially kill the Pebble Mine project on the grounds that the development would cause unacceptable damage to the region’s salmon population.
The EPA used the Clean Water Act to substantiate its decision, which was met with approval from environmentalist organizations staunchly opposed to the mine’s presence in the state’s Bristol Bay area. The agency specifically used language in the Clean Water Act that allows the EPA to exercise “veto authority” to effectively kill the project, which it has only invoked three times over the past three decades, according to Alaska Public Media. (RELATED: Native American Group Slams Biden Admin’s Move To Limit New Oil Projects In Alaska)
Saudi Aramco’s oil and gas reserves, estimated at 259 billion barrels, are unmatched by any other company globally.
Saudi Aramco produces 9 million barrels of oil per day, more than any other firm and nearly a tenth of the world’s total.
Saudi Aramco’s oil reserves are a key factor in its massive $1.8 trillion valuation and contribute significantly to Saudi Arabia’s plans to diversify its economy and reduce oil dependence.
The Haisla Nation and Pembina Pipeline Corporation decided to move ahead with the Cedar LNG project, a floating LNG export facility on Canada’s West Coast, and the world’s first indigenous majority-owned LNG project.
Pembina and the Haisla Nation, on whose territory the project will be built, announced a positive Final Investment Decision (FID) on the project with a nameplate capacity of 3.3 million tons per year. Cedar LNG aims to deliver Canadian natural gas to the global markets. The facility will be powered by renewable electricity from BC Hydro, making it one of the lowest emitting LNG facilities in the world, Pembina said in a statement.
Together with another project on the Pacific Coast, Shell-led LNG Canada, Cedar LNG in Kitimat, British Columbia, would be one of the first Canadian export projects and would take advantage of the proximity of the Pacific Coast to the key importing markets in Asia.
“We have created a model for how sustainable energy development should be done, with Indigenous Nations as owners, balancing environmental interests with global demand for cleaner energy,” said Crystal Smith, Chief Councillor of the Haisla Nation.
Saturday is the last day for registered candidates to quit Alaska’s legislative and U.S. House elections, and ahead of the deadline, some potential pols say they’ve decided against running for office after finding common ground with other candidates.
Jason Avery, the lone Democratic candidate in the race to replace Sen. Click Bishop, R-Fairbanks, is withdrawing and throwing his support behind candidate Savannah Fletcher, whose affiliation is undeclared.
“I realized that our platform is very similar. We both have the same priorities, and it’s just an opportunity for me to step aside and help her with her campaign,” he said.
Bishop said earlier this year that he would not seek reelection. Avery’s decision means the primary will not narrow the number of candidates for Bishop’s old seat.
Under Alaska law, the top four finishers in the Aug. 20 primary will advance to the general election, and Avery’s withdrawal reduces the number of candidates for the seat from five to four.
In Anchorage, undeclared candidate Greg Magee is dropping out of the House District 10 race against incumbent Republican Rep. Craig Johnson.
That leaves former Rep. Chuck Kopp, also a Republican, as Johnson’s lone opponent.
Magee said he spoke with Kopp this past week, and that meeting was a factor in his decision.
Magee registered as a candidate because he thought Johnson would be unopposed.
Magee disagrees with Johnson’s decision to uphold Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s veto of a bipartisan public education bill this year. The Legislature failed to override that veto by a single vote.
He said he also disagrees with Johnson’s opposition to a public-pension bill.
Magee said he and Kopp are aligned on those issues.
Magee’s withdrawal creates a head-to-head race between Kopp and Johnson in both the Aug. 20 primary and the Nov. 5 general election.
Today’s Key Takeaways: Supremes to review NEPA and climate change considerations. British banks abandon North Sea oil while U.S. boosts lending to oil and gas. Alaska’s in-state gas line needs Wally Hickel. Suit challenging Donlin’s EIS in court. Supremes asked to consider AK’s dark money rules.
Case involves decision to vacate 88-mile oil railway in Utah
Counties say agencies’ environmental reviews must be limited
The US Supreme Court granted certiorari on Monday in a case that may determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act allows federal agencies to consider climate change and other environmental impacts beyond the immediate scope of a proposed project.
The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo., focuses on the proposed 88-mile Uinta Basin Railway, which would carry oil and other minerals to market from northeast Utah. The Surface Transportation Board’s approval of the rail line was nixed by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit last year.
The coalition of Utah counties supporting the project are asking the Supreme Court to toss out that ruling and allow the Surface Transportation Board’s decision to stand.
The petitioners say the Supreme Court should settle a circuit split in the interpretation of its 2004 ruling in Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen. In that case, the justices ruled that NEPA doesn’t require federal agencies to study environmental impacts outside their jurisdiction.
It’s a prospect that is too good to not consider. Maybe, just maybe, Alaska could finally see an in-state gas line from the North Slope, an energy source that could help lower costs for Railbelt communities in the seemingly never-ending quest for affordable heat and power.
That is the renewed hope riding on news from the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) that it has secured a large source of North Slope natural gas per an agreement with Great Bear Pantheon Resources. The oil exploration company, a subsidiary of the London-based Pantheon Resources PLC and headquartered locally in Anchorage, made the announcement earlier this month. It has discovered a large gas reserve in its Ahpun project development about 20 miles south of Prudhoe Bay.
The environmental review process for proposed mining projects is a lengthy one. But Bethel’s Orutsararmiut Native Council and five other tribes from the region are suing the United States Army Corps of Engineers, saying the federal agency failed to consider important information in its review of the Donlin Gold mine project.
The first, the tribes assert, is that the Army Corps didn’t model a large enough potential spill from the tailings pond that would hold the mine’s waste material. Earthjustice attorney Maile Tavepholjalern represents the six tribes in the case.
“The Army Corps looked at a tailings spill of just 0.5% of the dam capacity,” Tavepholjalern said. “That’s even though larger tailings spills have happened, including during the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process for this mine – that was when Mount Polley’s dam failed, spilling out more than 30% of its contents.”
Second, the tribes allege the Army Corps of Engineers didn’t look closely enough at the health impacts of a massive mine in the region. They point to an unreleased state report, which outlined the mine’s potential positive and negative impacts including diet and food security, marine traffic, and local economies.
The third point of contention is the impact of Donlin’s barging plan on the Kuskokwim, which could more than double the number of barges on the river during the spring and summer. The tribes argue that the Army Corps didn’t properly consider or mitigate the impact of increased barging on Kuskokwim rainbow smelt – an important subsistence food for communities up and down the river.
Opponents of an Alaska law that requires the disclosure of “dark money” political donors are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the law.
A group of Republican and Republican-leaning plaintiffs filed a petition with the high court last week.
Under Alaska law, donors are required to disclose the “true source” of large contributions from politically oriented groups to local candidates.
In other states, donors frequently obscure their political activity by giving to a politically oriented nonprofit, which then donates money to a candidate. These donations are frequently labeled “dark money.”
Ordinarily, campaign disclosure laws would only list the nonprofit as the source of the money, but Alaska’s law was designed to expose the actual donor.
The names of top donors must be listed in advertising, and an ad must carry a warning message if a majority of donations came from outside the state.
Plaintiffs in the case are represented by former Alaska Attorney General Craig Richards and the Chicago-based Liberty Justice Center, which argued in last week’s filing that the law could violate the First Amendment.
Florida is again leading the nation in pursuit of policies designed to make life better for residents by removing laws from the books that would drive energy costs higher.
Governor DeSantis and the Florida legislature have codified laws beginning July 1st removing climate change as a priority (a justification for expensive energy decisions), banning costly offshore wind turbines from state waters, and making it easier to build and maintain natural gas infrastructure in the state.
The bills contain provisions ensuring consumer choice in appliance energy sources and protecting against Chinese imports of “green energy” devices made with slave labor.
The bills will moderate the rapidly rising cost of energy other states such as California, New York and Connecticut are suffering.
Florida’s Speaker of the House referred to the measures as “restoring sanity to our approach to energy,” something that may give other states the courage to update their energy policies.
Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis signed an energy bill that de-emphasizes climate change, outlaws offshore wind farms in state waters, and places the emphasis of state energy policy on the promotion of affordable and reliable energy. Under Florida’s new law, the state government is no longer required to consider climate change in energy policy, and the law also repeals grant programs encouraging renewable energy because renewable power is too expensive and untrustworthy. Renewables only function when the weather allows, that is, there is no solar power when there is no sun shining and there is no wind power when the wind wanes. Because of that intermittency of generation, solar and wind power must have expensive batteries to back them up where the energy for the batteries comes from excess wind and solar generation when and if that occurs. Florida has no wind turbines as its warm tropical breezes and slower wind speeds are not conducive for wind energy, but is a leader in solar power, producing 17,809 gigawatt hours in 2023
Florida’s new law, which takes effect on July 1, would also boost expansion of natural gas, reduce regulation on gas pipelines in the state and increase protections against bans on gas appliances such as stoves. It will require electric co-ops and cities to have hurricane restoration plans in order to receive state funding. It repeals Obama-era climate policies. It protects against forced labor by banning companies on the state’s forced labor vendor list from getting a state contract, and fining those that cannot certify their products were produced by wage labor. The bill also gets rid of a requirement that state-purchased vehicles should favor fuel efficiency, most likely meant for purchasing electric vehicles.
According to Governor DeSantis, “The legislation I signed today — H.B. 1645, H.B. 7071 and H.B. 1331 — will keep windmills off our beaches, gas in our tanks and China out of our state. We’re restoring sanity in our approach to energy and rejecting the agenda of the radical green zealots. Furthermore, we’re going to ensure foreign adversaries like China have no foothold in our state.”
Florida’s energy law is in contrast to President Biden’s energy policies that are pushing the United States to be dependent on China for energy as China plays a dominant role in the production of cheap electric vehicles, produces most of the batteries electric vehicles need, and controls the processing of critical minerals that green technologies and weapons manufacture rely on. Instead of promoting the mining and processing of minerals in the United States, President Biden has revoked leases, delayed permits, placed fauna and flora on endangered species lists, and withdrawn acreage from the benefits of mining, preferring to preserve the land for parks or tribal interests. So, in Biden’s America, fossil fuels are not allowed, but many of the components needed for the green energy transition are in the same situation, which is proving problematic for energy and national security.
Florida’s banning of offshore wind is also a win for Floridian electric consumers as offshore wind is an extremely expensive technology. Offshore wind projects are much more expensive than land-based ones and natural gas combined cycle technology because building and maintaining offshore wind facilities require specialized engineering due to harsh marine conditions and deep-water depths. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), offshore wind is over 3 times more expensive than onshore wind and more than double the cost of dispatchable natural gas combined cycle technology. Further, neither the costs of onshore wind nor offshore wind in EIA’s numbers capture the cost of the back-up technology needed to supply electricity when the wind does not blow, making those technologies even more expensive when added to the grid.
The offshore wind industry is also having problems due to increasing costs from supply chain issues, inflation and high borrowing rates spurred by Bidenomics. East Coast states that have been at the forefront of the offshore wind building craze have had to rebid many of their offshore wind contracts in order to up the prices paid in the power agreements between utilities and wind developers to allow for the cost increases. And many of those contract bids have not been accepted by the states in the rebidding process as the cost of the wind generation would be prohibitively high. Also, because offshore wind turbines are located far from population centers, expensive underwater cables are needed to get them connected to the electric grid onshore. Further, as the Florida legislature has identified, wind turbines can alter visual aesthetics and produce noise, which may affect coastal landscapes and nearby communities.
Conclusion
Florida is again at the forefront protecting families from skyrocketing energy costs by banning offshore wind and advocating for traditional, affordable, and reliable generating technologies. Florida’s series of bills that take effect on July I also remove climate change priority language from prior legislation and replaces that language with language focused on reliable and affordable energy. Among other changes, the bills would ease a regulation on building natural-gas pipelines, allow gas storage tanks in all local commercial, industrial and manufacturing land use categories, and ban homeowner associations from regulating energy sources in neighborhoods. According to the Florida House Speaker, the bill is needed to support utilities against pressure from the Biden administration and others who pursue “unrealistic” climate goals, and as such other states should follow it.
Today, we're celebrating the 47th anniversary of the startup of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. Congratulations @AlyeskaPipeline on Fueling Alaska's Economy for 47 years! 🎉 pic.twitter.com/99gTz4ny0d
The Senate Armed Services Committee approved its fiscal 2025 National Defense Authorization Act last week.
The Senate’s $912 billion defense policy bill would reverse the Biden administration’s move to reject the contentious Ambler mining road in Alaska, said Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan.
Sullivan said Friday he was able to attach an amendment to the fiscal 2025 National Defense Authorization Act that passed the Democratic-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee last week on a 22-3 vote.
The Biden administration earlier this year signaled its intent to block the 211-mile-long mining road because of concerns about subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska, as well as caribou populations and permafrost.
Sullivan, in a release, said the defense bill includes a provision that would “rescind the Biden administration’s lawless rejection of the previously approved Ambler Access Project — a nonpublic road to one of America’s most prolific untapped reserves of critical minerals, resources that our country is concerningly reliant on China to produce.”
OIL:
JUDGE ENDS EXXON SUIT AGAINST CLIMATE ACTIVIST INVESTOR: The legal fight between Exxon Mobil and activist investor Arjuna Capital has come to an end, at least for now.
U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman for the Northern District of Texas threw out Exxon’s lawsuit against Arjuna, in which the oil major had sought to block a climate-related shareholder resolution from Arjuna, even though the proposal was withdrawn before the shareholder meeting last month.
Pittman, appointed by Donald Trump, said yesterday that the suit was moot, given that Arjuna had promised not to file a similar resolution in the future, CNBC reports.
Exxon claims victory: Exxon CEO Darren Woods cast the decision as a win for the company, saying in a press release that Pittman “made it clear that Arjuna is bound by its commitment to not submit, or work with others to submit, similar proposals to ExxonMobil in the future.”
Exxon’s leadership is coming off a major win over climate investors at the May meeting. Woods and other board members were easily reappointed despite an effort by activist investors and Democratic state financial officials to oppose them over their treatment of Arjuna and other activist shareholders.
From the Washington Examiner Daily on Energy, June 18, 2024
Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, they said, had previously declined or ignored their meeting requests.
Alaska Native leaders met with Interior Secretary Deb Haaland in Washington on Thursday after she had rejected or ignored at least eight previous requests, they said.
Elected leaders of the North Slope Iñupiaq Community met with Haaland and other Interior Department staffers at the agency’s headquarters after Iñupiat representatives had accused the department of stonewalling them by refusing their previous requests to meet with the secretary to discuss Interior’s policies.
“The mood going in from our side was one of sadness as it has taken eight, nine requests to get an audience with the secretary,” said Kate Wolgemuth, program, and government affairs manager for Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat, a nonprofit that represents Arctic Slope communities. “To her credit, she granted us that audience,” Wolgemuth said of Haaland. After “nine requests, there’s definitely some feelings” among the Alaskans, but there was “very respectful engagement” with the secretary, she added.
The Alaskans in Washington this week came with a series of requests for Haaland on oil and gas regulations and decisions. They want formal notices of consultation through both mail and email moving forward and a commitment that North Slope leadership be part of the development of policies and be alerted to decisions and announcements before “leaks to the press or outside organizations,” they said.
President Biden is spending $7.5 billion to build EV charging infrastructure, but so far only 7 stations have opened from his “National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure” program, turning the program into a debacle.
While Biden apparently is unhappy with the progress so far, it turns out many of the delays were created when he issued executive orders early in his tenure to force social-engineering mandates and requirements upon federal funding programs.
For example, he mandated 40 percent of all funding on climate and energy target “underserved communities” even though one of the areas eligible is Martha’s Vineyard, vacation town to the rich and famous.
Some Department of Transportation officials have gone “off the record” after their department was challenged about the efficacy of the program, pointing to the voluminous government reporting and analysis required by Biden’s executive orders.
Secretary of Energy Granholm has even stated that some of the areas targeted for charging stations do not have electricity.
Biden’s $7.5 billion EV charging stations program, which promised half a million installations, still has over 499,990 to go after three years. President Biden signed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in November 2021, allocating $7.5 billion for electric vehicle charging, of which $5 billion is dedicated to building a network of chargers along major highways, called the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program. Just seven electric-vehicle charging stations have begun operating with that $5-billion funding, marking “pathetic” progress, as automakers and others indicate that drastically expanding EV-charging stations is crucial to the wide deployment of electric vehicles, which is part of Biden’s climate change program. The seven EV-charging stations deployed to date consist of a few dozen total charging ports.
