Archive by Author

Cheney touts Jan. 6 panel work at GOP debate

Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney (R) promoted her work on the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol during a debate with other Republicans running for her congressional seat preceding the primary in August.

“I think absolutely there’s no question that what we saw happen on January 6, was clearly an attempt to delay the count of the electoral votes,” Cheney said. “Anybody who was there understands the violence that was involved.”

Cheney is one of two Republican members of the House Jan. 6 committee and has been outspoken in her opposition to former President Trump, whom she and her fellow committee members say was at the center of an effort to retain power that led directly to the violent rioting that day.

The Jan. 6 committee, including Cheney, has been in the spotlight as it has held a series of public hearings this month to lay out its case against the former president.

Cheney appeared to call out Trump-endorsed candidate Harriet Hageman for her stance on the Jan. 6 riots and the investigations into them, saying: “I’m frankly stunned that one of my opponents on the stage who is a member of the Wyoming bar, who has sworn an oath as many of us on this stage have the Constitution would be in a position where where she is suggesting that somehow what happened on January 6 was justified or that somehow what happened tha​t day, the people have the right to ignore the rulings of the courts.”

She added: “We are in fact a nation of laws. And we are a nation of laws only if we defend our constitutional republic.”

Hageman, who appeared at Trump’s rally in Casper, Wyo., last month, has joined the former president in dismissing Cheney as a “RINO” or “Republican In Name Only.”

“The Republican Party has a long and storied history of embracing the conservative values that I believe in very strongly,” said Cheney in the debate. “But we are now embracing a cult of personality and I won’t be part of that and I will always stand for my oath and stand for the truth.”

Cheney elaborated that Trump has “lied to the American people” according to the testimony of various witnesses heard during the Jan. 6 committee’s hearings, whom she emphasized are “predominantly, maybe entirely” affiliated with the Republican party.

Cheney also challenged Hageman to say whether she thought the 2020 election was “stolen,” saying that she did not believe her opponent could correctly state that it was not stolen because she is “entirely beholden to Donald Trump.”

“We’ve got to be honest, we have to be truthful — elected officials in particular, public servants owe that to those people we represent,” Cheney said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Leahy 'comfortably recovering' after hip replacement

Senate President Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is “comfortably recovering” after undergoing hip replacement surgery on Thursday following a fall at his home, his office said.

In a statement issued Thursday evening, Leahy’s office said the surgery was “successful” and he remains in a Washington, D.C.-area hospital.

“He is expected to begin a physical therapy regimen after sufficient healing that will allow Patrick and Marcelle to begin taking their daily long walks together again,” the statement read.

Leahy, who stands third in the line of presidential succession, fell and broke his hip on Wednesday evening at his home in McLean, Va., which is located in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. His office announced the fall on Thursday morning prior to the surgery.

The initial statement cited lack of depth perception as a factor for the fall, noting that Leahy was born blind in one eye.

“Patrick and Marcelle are overwhelmed and humbled by the outpouring of support, and they are deeply grateful for all of the kind and encouraging messages they have received,” Leahy’s office said following his surgery.

Leahy’s office has not yet said when they expect him to return to the Capitol.

Leahy’s absence from the upper chamber limits Democrats’ options in the 50-50 Senate. Without the full caucus present, any bill or nominee without Republican support cannot pass unless a GOP senator is also absent.

The Senate is currently in recess for Independence Day through the end of next week.

Source: TEST FEED1

Abbott holds 8-point lead over O'Rourke in Texas governor's race: poll

Incumbent Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) is leading Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke by 8 points among likely voters in the state’s gubernatorial race, a new poll has found.

According to a CBS News/YouGov poll released Thursday, Abbot is leading O’Rourke 49 percent to 41 percent among likely voters, despite the majority of Texas residents surveyed viewing the governor’s response to the deadly Uvalde, Texas, school shooting negatively and more than half having an unfavorable opinion of his general performance as governor.

Among the 1,075 respondents to the poll, which was conducted between June 22 and 27, 79 percent of Republican voters said they approved of Abbott’s track record compared with 24 percent of Democrats, with 40 percent of independents approving and 60 percent disapproving.

The poll shows a wider gap between Abbott and O’Rourke compared with a Quinnipiac University poll conducted from June 9 to June 13 that found Abbott had a 5-point lead among Texas voters.

Tensions between Abbott and O’Rourke came to a head last month during a press conference in Uvalde when O’Rourke accused the governor of being complicit in the shooting.

“You are doing nothing,” O’Rourke said. “You said this was not predictable, this was totally predictable, and you choose not to do anything.”

Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin slammed O’Rourke for his outburst, calling him a “sick son of a bitch” for making a “political issue.”

The margin of error for the CBS News poll is 4.7 percentage points.

Source: TEST FEED1

Uber report details thousands of sexual assault claims on platform amid pandemic

Uber received 3,824 sexual assault reports from its U.S. rides in 2019-20, a decline of 38 percent from the previous two years, according to a safety report the company released Thursday.

The company said the decline could be in part related to the impacts of the pandemic, citing a drop from 2.3 billion rides in 2017-18 to 2.1 billion rides in 2019-20, but also hailed its recent safety investments and strengthened background check requirements.

“We’re constantly innovating and investing in the safety of our platform,” the company said in the report. “We’ve prioritized robust screening processes and technology, built new safety features and invested in providing riders and drivers with support in times of need.”

Uber said riders were the accused party in 43 percent of sexual assault reports in 2019-20, which it noted was on par with previous years.

The report further broke down five categories of sexual assault, saying a majority of the reports involved non-consensual touching of a sexual body part. 

Instances of each of the five offense types, which range from non-consensual kissing of a non-sexual body part to non-consensual sexual penetration, all declined from 2017-18.

But even with dampening demand for Uber rides during the pandemic, the company reported 141 instances of non-consensual sexual penetration, or rape, in 2020. Uber said rape was reported for roughly 1 in every 5 million Uber rides.

“Each reported incident represents a harrowing lived experience for the survivor,” the company said. “Even one report is one report too many.” 

Meanwhile, the number of motor vehicle fatalities during U.S. Uber rides increased in its most recent report.

Uber reported 0.62 fatalities for every 100 million miles driven in 2019-20, about a 7 percent increase from its previous report but only about half the national average.

The company attributed the rise to “drastic changes” in the driving environment, noting a simultaneous increase in driving fatalities nationwide.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration attributed the nationwide jump in driving fatalities in large part to alcohol impairment, people not wearing seatbelts and speeding. The agency also detailed changes in driving patterns when people remained home during the pandemic.

Source: TEST FEED1

Newsom signs pivotal plastics bill into California law

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed into law on Thursday a landmark bill that will significantly reduce single-use plastic packaging and utensils in the state over the next decade.

The law — called SB-54 — requires a 25-percent decrease in disposable plastic packaging and foodware accessories by both weight and “plastic component source” by 2032, according to the bill’s text.

A plastic component source refers to any single piece of plastic-covered material, as defined by the bill. Out of 100 juices boxes, for example, 25 plastic straws would need to be eliminated.

“For far too long, plastic waste has been a growing burden for humans, animals, and the water, soil, and air we need to exist,” the bill’s author, state Sen. Bill Allen (D), said in a statement.

“In this time of extreme polarization in our nation, California was able to show that we can pass strong environmental legislation with bipartisan support that brought together the environmental and business communities,” Allen added. 

Environmentalists hailed the advancement of the legislation, which passed in the State Assembly on Wednesday night in a 67-2 vote — with 11 votes not recorded — and by 29-0 in the State Senate on Thursday morning.

“It’s hard to capture how momentous this feels,” Anja Brandon, U.S. Plastics Policy Analyst at Ocean Conservancy and a principal contributor to the bill text, said in a statement.

“The United States is the number-one generator of plastic waste in the world and a top contributor to the ocean plastics crisis,” she continued. “We can’t solve this problem without U.S. leadership, and by passing this law, California is righting the ship. This is a huge win for our ocean.”

To accomplish the 25-percent cutback, the bill mandates that at least 10 percent of single-use plastic packaging and utensils either be entirely plastic free or shift from single-use to reuse and refill systems. In total, at least 4 percent of such plastics must transition to these systems.

That combination of eliminating plastics and shifting to reuse and refill could directly remove 23 million tons of single-use plastics over the next 10 years — equivalent to nearly 26 times the weight of the Golden Gate Bridge, according to Ocean Conservancy.

The remaining 15-percent source reduction can occur by transition to bulk or large format packaging or shifting to a nonplastic alternative material, the bill explains. The law mandates, however, no more than 8 percent of such products can be reduced by using post-consumer recycled content plastic.

All single-use packaging and foodware, including non-plastic items, must be recyclable or compostable by 2032, according to the law. By the same year, all plastic-covered material offered for sale, distribution or import into the state must achieve a 65-percent recycling rate, the text reads.

Responding to the legislation’s advancement, Joshua Baca, vice president of plastics at the American Chemistry Council, stressed that while “the law is not perfect,” it is “a better outcome” than an “anti-plastics” ballot measure that was withdrawn on Thursday evening.

Baca was referring to the California Recycling and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act, which would have required a 25-percent reduction by 2030, among other stricter rules. 

That ballot measure faced intense opposition from the business sector, which ultimately led to negotiations among industry, environment groups and politicians on the milder SB-54 bill that Newsom signed into law on Thursday, according to CalMatters.

Removal of ballot initiatives in California needs to occur 130 days before the Nov. 8 election — meaning that the petitioners needed to do so by the end of June, per California state law.

The three petitioners withdrew the ballot measure on Thursday evening, after declaring late Wednesday that they would do so if Newsom signed SB-54 into law, CalMatters reported.

Had that ballot initiative gone forward, the policy could have cost Californians an estimated $9 billion dollars annually but only invested about 30 percent of that into improving recycling, according to Baca.

“Now we will focus on working with lawmakers, regulators, and other stakeholders to help ensure the implementation of SB 54 matches its intent: eliminating plastic waste and improving plastics circularity, while minimizing costs on Californians,” Baca said. 

While Ocean Conservancy had originally supported both the ballot initiative and the bill, a statement from the organization said that the group now favored the initiative’s withdrawal.

“Our number one priority has always been fewer plastics on shelves and less plastic pollution in our ocean, and both SB54 and the ballot measure were viable pathways,” said Nicholas Mallos, senior director of Ocean Conservancy’s Trash Free Seas program.

“Historically, ballot initiatives face an uphill battle for implementation even when passed, meaning it could be years before any of its provisions would go into effect,” Mallos added. “Not only is SB54 as strong or stronger than the ballot in many ways; but we are looking at guaranteed action on this critical issue immediately.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Equilibrium/Sustainability — Wildfires and mass extinction events

An ancient mass extinction that nearly wiped out life on Earth was accompanied by continent-spanning wildfires, a new study has found.  

The study, published on Thursday in the journal Palaios, raises the unsettling possibility that wildfires could become a powerful driver of extinction under climate change, rather than simply another symptom of changing weather.

The research team, based at the University College of Cork, found increasingly thick layers of charcoal — a sign of high-temperature wildfires in ancient forests — at the end of the Permian Period, about 251 million years ago. 

“It was an end-Permian burnout,” lead author Chris Mays said in a statement. 

The fires turned carbon sinks — areas like forests, which pull down carbon dioxide — into major sources of the planet-warming gas, which drove the firestorm on, according to Mays.

During the Permian, runaway global warming — caused in large measure by enormous releases of carbon dioxide from volcanic eruptions — powered a global feedback loop of destructive fire that raged across once-wet forests and overcame plant defenses, the team found.

“Unlike the species that suffered the mass extinctions of the past, we have the opportunity to prevent the burning of the world’s carbon sinks and help avoid the worst effects of modern warming,” Mays added. 

Welcome to Equilibrium, a newsletter that tracks the growing global battle over the future of sustainability. We’re Saul Elbein and Sharon Udasin. Send us tips and feedback. Subscribe here.

Today we’ll look at a new California law mandating big cuts in the state’s single-use plastics. Then we’ll turn to a Supreme Court decision limiting federal oversight on climate change and why OPEC’s proposed oil bump likely won’t do much for prices.

Pivotal California plastics bill becomes law 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed into law on Thursday a landmark bill that will significantly reduce single-use plastic packaging and utensils in the state over the next decade.

• The law — called SB-54 — requires a 25-percent decrease in disposable plastic packaging and foodware accessories by both weight and “plastic component source” by 2032, according to the bill’s text.
• A “plastic component source” includes any single piece of plastic-covered material. Per the new law, this would mean that for every 100 juices boxes, 25 plastic straws would need to be eliminated.

A win for the ocean: Environmentalists hailed the advancement of the legislation, which passed in the state Assembly on Wednesday night and in the state Senate on Thursday morning.

“The United States is the number-one generator of plastic waste in the world and a top contributor to the ocean plastics crisis,” Anja Brandon, U.S. Plastics Policy Analyst at Ocean Conservancy and a principal contributor to the bill text, said in a statement.

“We can’t solve this problem without U.S. leadership, and by passing this law, California is righting the ship,” she added. “This is a huge win for our ocean.”  

How will the 25 percent cutback occur? The bill mandates that at least 10 percent of single-use plastic packaging and utensils either become entirely plastic free or shift from single-use to reuse and refill systems.

This decrease alone could directly remove 23 million tons of single-use plastics over the next 10 years — equivalent to nearly 26 times the weight of the Golden Gate Bridge, according to Ocean Conservancy.

And the remaining 15 percent reduction? The bills says this can occur by transitioning to bulk packaging or shifting to a non-plastic alternative materials.

• The law mandates, however, that no more than 8 percent of such products can be reduced by using post-consumer recycled plastic.
• All single-use packaging and foodware, including non-plastic items, must be recyclable or compostable by 2032, according to the law.
• By the same year, all plastic-covered material offered for sale, distribution or import into the state must achieve a 65 percent recycling rate.

What does industry say? Stressing that “the law is not perfect,” Joshua Baca, vice president of plastics at the American Chemistry Council, said that this is “a better outcome” than an “anti-plastics” ballot initiative that has now been withdrawn.

• Baca was referring to the California Recycling and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act, which would have required a 25-percent reduction by 2030, among other stricter measures.
• That initiative, according to Baca, would have cost Californians an estimated $9 billion annually but only about 30 percent of that would be invested into improving recycling, he explained.

Moving forward: “Now we will focus on working with lawmakers, regulators, and other stakeholders to help ensure the implementation of SB 54 matches its intent: eliminating plastic waste and improving plastics circularity, while minimizing costs on Californians,” Baca said.  

Subscribe to “The Hill: Just in” 

The Hill’s new YouTube channel posts rapid updates on the top story of the day, tracking key figures in politics and making sense of important policy decisions and how they impact your life.

Supreme Court restricts EPA’s climate authority

The Supreme Court on Thursday curbed the power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate climate change — imposing restrictions on the agency’s oversight of power plants.

• The court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Congress did not authorize the EPA “to devise emissions caps” based on an Obama-era power plant regulation, our colleagues Rachel Frazin and Harper Neidig reported for The Hill.
• The ruling — available in its full text on The Hill’s website — was split along ideological lines, with conservative justices choosing to limit and EPA’s power. 

What was at issue? The Supreme Court was probing language in the Clean Air Act that enables the EPA to regulate power plants using a “best system of emissions reduction” and what that system can include, Frazin and Neidig reported.

The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, argued that the Obama administration’s use of a system that involved transitioning away from carbon-intensive coal plants and toward natural gas and renewables did not qualify.  

And the dissent? “Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote. “And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high.”

Sounding the alarm: Climate hawk members of the Democratic Party demanded action following the decision, with some lawmakers calling to expand the court and others demanding that Congress codify the EPA’s authority to combat climate change, our colleague Zack Budryk reported.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called the ruling “catastrophic,” while House Energy Committee Chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said it “makes a mockery of the clear separation of powers outlined in our Constitution.”

Power of legislation: Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) argued that the ruling could only be countered through legislation, Budryk reported for The Hill. 

“The Republicans on the Supreme Court are not going to allow any meaningful administration efforts to combat climate change. It’s crystal clear,” Wyden said. “The only way to tackle this problem is through congressional action.” 

OPEC+ push unlikely to have big effect on gas prices

Saudi Arabia and other petroleum exporting nations have agreed to ramp up oil production, but experts say the supply increase isn’t likely to significantly lower oil prices in the United States.

• The announcement from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and other major oil producers came in advance of President Biden’s proposed July visit, The New York Times reported. 
• For nearly a year, the U.S. has pressed major Middle Eastern oil producers to increase oil production — putting them into an unstable position between America and Russia, according to Reuters.

Pumping up: On Thursday, Saudi Arabia and fellow members of OPEC agreed to increase oil production by the equivalent of an additional 648,000 barrels, CNBC reported. 

• That’s about a third more than the 2022 daily production of Alaska, according to data from the state. 
• It would also represent a 50 percent increase in production over June, The New York Times reported. 

Prices budge a bit: The promised increase in supply hasn’t yet impacted prices much — because traders don’t believe OPEC can make good on them, The Wall Street Journal reported.

• Commodity prices for Brent crude oil — the international standard — have dropped by about 2 percent since the announcement, foreign exchange reporting site Daily FX reported.
• U.S. prices fell by just over 2 percent, according to DailyFX. 

Why traders are skeptical: OPEC was only able to produce 42 million barrels a day in May, the Journal reported. 

• The Journal noted that this is 3 million barrels below the cartel’s target. 
• That deficit is nearly five times the amount that OPEC members promised Biden. 

Walking a tightrope: The global demand for lower prices is crashing against Saudi and Emirati producers’ desire to keep supply on hand for unforeseen market disturbances, the Journal reported. 

“It is already a very difficult balancing act for us,” a senior Gulf OPEC delegate told the Journal. 

Shrinking buffer: OPEC countries are all facing shrinking levels of spare capacity — the difference between what they can and do produce, as Bloomberg reported last month.

• “I am a dinosaur, but I have never seen these things,” Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman told Bloomberg.
• “The world needs to wake up to an existing reality” in which it is “running out of energy capacity at all levels,” he added. 

FACING THE FUTURE

The United Arab Emirates (UAE), the region’s other principal swing producer of oil, is becoming one of the biggest state funders of renewable energy, the Journal reported.

• Masdar, the renewables arm of the Emirati sovereign wealth fund, has already invested $20 billion in green energy projects since 2006, according to the Journal.
• It has also promised $400 million to help developing nations transition to low-carbon energy, the company announced earlier this month. 

UAE sees big opportunities: For the world’s seventh-largest oil exporter, renewables represent a chance for expansion into a new market with less entrenched rules and players, according to the Journal.

• It’s “such a new thing at this scale that everyone is learning as they go,” energy analyst Robin Mills told the Journal.
• That “makes it easier to get into than trying to break into an existing business,” Mills added 

Scientists brew keystone chemical from waste gas 

Scientists have figured out how to turn a potent climate pollutant into a liquid fuel using a stream of light. 

Such a discovery opens up the possibility that waste from municipal dumps, crops, hog farms and fossil fuel production could be cheaply converted into industrial chemicals, a statement accompanying the study said.   

Gas into liquid: The researchers converted methane gas — a planet-warming chemicals dozens of times more powerful than carbon dioxide — into methanol, a building block for an enormous array of more complex industrial chemicals, according to the study, published in Nature on Thursday.  

Proposed fuel: In addition to chemical manufacture, methanol redirected from waste has been proposed as a carbon-neutral method of decarbonizing heavy freight like shipping and planes, as we previously reported. 

Potential for greenwashing: When burned, methanol still releases carbon dioxide. That makes the question of where it came from — and what products it replaced — vital to determining whether it is truly green. 

Thirsty Thursday

Wildfires could make Idaho cows produce less milk, Italian hairdressers face penalties for double-shampooing and drought creeps up on Northeast. 

Fires leave dairy cows running a little dry

• Idaho farmers are bracing for steep drops in this year’s milk yield owing to smoke from summer wildfires — which cause cows to produce less milk, according to the Idaho Statesman. A study cited in the Statesman found that on a smoky day, a cow might produce 8 pounds less milk than a clear one — a dip of about ten percent, based on data from Penn State.

Amid drought, Italian hairdressers face fines 

• The mayor of the Italian town of Castenaso, near Bologna, has prohibited hairdressers and barbers from shampooing clients’ hair twice, in attempt to conserve water, The Guardian reported. Those who violate the measure can receive fines of up to 500 euros ($524), according to The Guardian.

Drought conditions getting worse in the Northeast 

• While most media attention has focused on the ongoing drought in the U.S. West, the Northeast is also struggling with increasing dryness, NBC Los Angeles reported. With no recent rain in New England, for example, about 75 percent of Massachusetts is now under moderate drought — as opposed to 25 percent last week, according to NBC.

Please visit The Hill’s Sustainability section online for the web version of this newsletter and more stories. We’ll see you tomorrow.

VIEW THE FULL EDITION HERE

Source: TEST FEED1

Energy & Environment — Supreme Court rules in major climate case

The Supreme Court curbed what powers the Environmental Protection Agency has to regulate climate change. We’ll look at the ruling’s fallout and further implications. 

This is Overnight Energy & Environment, your source for the latest news focused on energy, the environment and beyond. For The Hill, we’re Rachel Frazin and Zack Budryk. Subscribe here.

Court curbs EPA’s power to regulate power plants 

The Supreme Court on Thursday curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) ability to regulate climate change, setting limits on how the agency can deal with power plants.

• In a 6-3 decision, the majority ruled that Congress did not authorize the EPA to induce a shift to cleaner energy sources using the approach that an Obama-era regulation sought to.
• “Congress did not grant EPA…the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan,” the majority wrote, referring to an Obama-era power plant regulation.
• The ruling was split along ideological lines, with conservative justices opting to restrict the EPA’s power while the liberal justices disagreed.

The legal weeds: At issue in the case was language in the Clean Air Act that enables the EPA to regulate power plants using a “best system of emissions reduction” and what specifically that system can entail.

• The majority opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, determined the Obama administration’s use of a system that involved moving away from carbon-intensive coal plants and toward natural gas and renewables did not qualify.
• Roberts wrote that the plan, which involved regulating the power system as a whole instead of regulating individual plants, was an “unprecedented” view of the EPA’s authority that involved a “fundamental revision of the statute, changing it from [one sort of] scheme of . . . regulation” into an entirely different kind. 

In Thursday’s ruling, the court took a regulatory tool off the table for the Biden administration, which is currently working on its own power plant regulations. 

Legal experts recently told The Hill that preventing the EPA from using certain climate tools could result in regulations that allow more planet-warming emissions overall. 

The liberal justice disagreed: Justice Elena Kagan, writing a dissent for the three liberal justices on Thursday, said the majority was constraining the federal government’s ability to address carbon emissions during a time of crisis.

• “The subject matter of the regulation here makes the Court’s intervention all the more troubling,” Kagan wrote.
• “Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions.”

Read more about the decision here from Rachel and The Hill’s Harper Neidig.

BIDEN PLEDGES ACTION DESPITE ‘DEVASTATING’ RULING

President Biden on Thursday pledged to carry on with climate action despite the Supreme Court restricting how his administration can respond to global warming.

• The president called the ruling curbing the EPA’s power “devastating” but said his administration would continue to look for ways to mitigate global warming.
• “The Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia vs. EPA is another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards,” he said in a statement.
• “While this decision risks damaging our nation’s ability to keep our air clean and combat climate change, I will not relent in using my lawful authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis,” he added. 

What about Regan? EPA Administrator Michael Regan similarly said in a statement Thursday that he was “committed to using the full scope of EPA’s authorities to protect communities and reduce the pollution that is driving climate change.”

Climate hawks call for change:  

• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called the ruling “catastrophic” and said it illustrated the need for an overhaul of the filibuster. “A filibuster carveout is not enough. We need to reform or do away with the whole thing, for the sake of the planet,” she tweeted shortly after the ruling’s release.
• Meanwhile, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who has staked out a position as among the most aggressive Democrats in the Senate on climate issues, tweeted Thursday “For our planet, for our rights, and for our very future, expand the Supreme Court.”
• In a longer statement, Markey expanded on the call to add seats to the court, writing “Today’s ruling lets polluters turn back the clock on fifty years of reduced pollution and improved air quality all across the country. The result of this dangerous decision is an EPA that is undermined in its ability to protect the public from harmful pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.” 

Meanwhile, Republicans celebrated a limit to ‘overreaching’ regulations

• “This is about maintaining the separation of powers, not climate change,” said West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R). “And we’re not done. My office will continue to fight for the rights of West Virginians when those in Washington try to go too far in asserting broad powers without the people’s support.”
• “For years, Democrats have used overreaching Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations to side-step Congress and the American people to enact their extreme climate agenda. The Court’s decision confirms Congress, not the EPA, has the authority to create environmental policy,” Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement.

Read more on Biden’s response and how the ruling angered Democrats.

Climate ruling puts other regs at risk

The Supreme Court’s Thursday decision curtailing the EPA’s authority could hamper regulations far beyond climate. 

The conservative majority in the 6-3 ruling found that an Obama-era power plant rule was not permissible since it didn’t have “clear congressional authorization.”

But legal experts say this principle could be applied elsewhere, restricting the Biden administration from imposing other regulations in areas including health and consumer protections.

• “If people think the federal government should be there to ensure that Americans have a basic level of health, safety and environmental protection, they should be very worried about these decisions,” said University of Michigan law professor Nina Mendelson.

The high court’s ruling invoked a legal philosophy called the “major questions doctrine,” which posits that regulations of substantial national significance need to have clear authorization from Congress.

This is not the first time the idea has popped up — it recently made an appearance in the court’s decision to block the Biden administration’s coronavirus vaccines-or-testing mandate for large employers.

But William Buzbee, a law professor at Georgetown, said the Supreme Court took a new approach with its ruling Thursday.

• “It’s applying this doctrine more aggressively,” Buzbee said, pointing out that it was being used to curb the EPA’s authorities in an area where the agency actually has power and expertise. 
• He also called the court’s move a “power grab” that will offer “artillery” for future arguments against regulations to address new problems.

Read more about the potential regulatory implications here.

WHAT WE’RE READING

• California passes polarizing energy bill that could help rescue gas plants (The Los Angeles Times) 
• Can Dual-Use Solar Panels Provide Power and Share Space With Crops? (The New York Times) 
• OPEC, Allies Agree to Boost Oil Production Ahead of Biden’s Saudi Visit (The Wall Street Journal) 
• Group drops $1.7M to bolster at-risk Dems on gas prices (E&E News) 

That’s it for today, thanks for reading. Check out The Hill’s Energy & Environment page for the latest news and coverage. We’ll see you tomorrow.

VIEW FULL VERSION HERE

Source: TEST FEED1

McConnell threatens semiconductor bill, prompting White House rebuke

A partisan fight erupted over bipartisan legislation aimed at boosting the domestic semiconductor industry on Thursday, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) threatened Republican support for the bill if Democrats move forward with a separate reconciliation package.  

“Let me be perfectly clear: there will be no bipartisan USICA as long as Democrats are pursuing a partisan reconciliation bill,” McConnell tweeted on Thursday afternoon, referring to the Senate-passed version of the semiconductor bill called the United States Innovation and Competition Act (USICA). 

The White House fired back hours later, accusing McConnell of “holding hostage” legislation designed to make the U.S. more competitive against China by investing in the chip industry. The legislation includes about $50 billion for the semiconductor industry in the U.S. 

A version of the semiconductor bill passed the Senate more than a year ago with bipartisan support and the House followed suit with their own version earlier this year. The bill has been subject to bipartisan negotiations for the past several weeks.  

The legislation is a top priority of the Biden administration, which has billed it as a way to make the U.S. more competitive against China while helping to ease supply chain woes by investing in a critical American industry.  

McConnell’s tweet followed reports this week about Democrats working on revised plans for a package that they aim to pass with only Democratic votes in the Senate through a process known as budget reconciliation.

The Hill reported Thursday that Senate Democrats are planning to submit a revised proposal to lower prescription drug prices to the Senate parliamentarian in the coming days, which they hope to include in a larger reconciliation package. 

It’s unclear if Democrats will succeed this time in successfully passing parts of Biden’s domestic policy agenda through reconciliation; a past effort to do so was torpedoed by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) in December. Republicans have stood uniformly against Biden’s domestic agenda proposal, taking issue with the price tag and arguing it could contribute to inflation.  

If McConnell follows through on his threat, Democrats could fold the China competition bill into a reconciliation package.   

“Senate Republicans are literally choosing to help China out compete the U.S. in order to protect big drug companies,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in the statement responding to McConnell’s tweet. “This takes loyalty to special interests over working Americans to a new and shocking height.  We are not going to back down in the face of this outrageous threat.”  

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) spokesman Justin Goodman echoed that message, tweeting: “Sen. McConnell is so beholden to PhRMA that he’s willing to help China, hurt American manufacturing, and screw over Americans with outrageously high Rx prices.”  

Source: TEST FEED1

On The Money — Higher food, gas prices cut into consumer spending

Americans are spending more money on the whole, but they got less with it in May as inflation kept rising. We’ll also look at a potential revival of some of President Biden’s economic agenda and a brutal month for the stock market. 

But first, catch up on Biden’s Group of Seven and NATO meetings here.

Welcome to On The Money, your nightly guide to everything affecting your bills, bank account and bottom line. For The Hill, we’re Sylvan Lane, Aris Folley and Karl Evers-Hillstrom.  Subscribe here.

Consumer spending falls in May

Consumer spending dropped in May as food and fuel prices rose sharply, according to data released Thursday by the Commerce Department.

• Personal consumption expenditures (PCE), a measure of consumer spending, rose 0.2 percent in May but fell 0.4 percent when adjusted for inflation.
• While personal incomes rose 0.5 percent in May, they fell 0.1 percent after adjusting for inflation. 

The decline in consumer spending came as prices rose 0.6 percent overall in May, according to the Commerce Department’s PCE price index, a gauge of inflation. Without food and fuel prices, the PCE index rose 0.3 percent for the third consecutive month in May.

The takeaway: While prices for other goods and services appeared to plateau on the whole in May, the steep increase in food and energy prices driven largely by the war in Ukraine took a serious toll on consumer spending. Higher interest rates set by the Federal Reserve, which are meant to fight inflation, may have also weighed on consumer spending in May. 

Sylvan breaks it down here. 

MINI BBB?

Senate Democrats plan to submit a revised proposal to lower prescription drug prices for a key procedural review in the coming days as they press forward with preparations for a vote on President Biden’s economic package.

Lawmakers have made some revisions to a deal to lower drug prices and plan to submit it to the Senate parliamentarian in the coming days for a review of whether it can pass muster with the chamber’s complicated rules for avoiding a Republican filibuster, a source familiar said.

• Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has told senators that if a broader deal can be reached, the package could get a vote “as early as late July,” the source familiar said.
• That plan would allow Medicare to negotiate lower prices for a limited subset of older drugs, prevent drug companies from raising prices faster than inflation, and cap out of pocket drug costs for seniors on Medicare at $2,000 per year.
    
• Importantly, though, there is still no deal between Schumer and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on the other major pieces of the package: tax and energy policy.

The Hill’s Peter Sullivan has more here.

STOCKS CLOSE OUT BRUTAL JUNE

The stock market closed out the final day of June with losses, capping off a tumultuous month for investors and the S&P 500 index’s worst first half since 1970.

• The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed with a loss of 0.8 percent Thursday. The index is down 7.2 percent on the month and 15.3 percent since the start of 2022. 
• The tech-heavy Nasdaq is down 29.5 percent on the year, while the S&P dipped 21 percent.  

While stocks were expected to come back to earth in 2022, Wall Street has taken relentless and escalating losses as high inflation, the war in Ukraine and the Federal Reserve’s efforts to mitigate both boost concerns about a recession. 

Sylvan has more here. 

BIDEN WON’T ASK SAUDIS TO INCREASE PRODUCTION

President Biden on Thursday said he won’t ask Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to increase oil production during his visit to the Middle East next month. 

“No, I’m not going to ask them. I’m going to ask— all the Gulf States are meeting. I’ve indicated to them that I thought they should be increasing oil production generically, not to the Saudis particularly. And I think, I hope, we see them in their own interest concluding that makes sense to do,” Biden said at a press conference in Spain. 

Experts have said that it’s not guaranteed that lower gasoline prices would come out of Biden convincing the Kingdom to stabilize global oil markets. Saudi Arabia is the world’s second-largest oil producer and unofficial head of the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries. 

Alex Gangitano has more here.

Good to Know

The Supreme Court on Thursday curbed the EPA’s ability to regulate climate change, setting limits on how the agency can deal with power plants. 

In a 6-3 decision, the majority ruled that Congress did not authorize the EPA to induce a shift to cleaner energy sources using the approach that an Obama-era regulation sought to. 

Here’s what else we have our eye on: 

• A billion-dollar fund belonging to a Russian government official and invested in U.S. public companies has been frozen by the Treasury Department after an investigation going back more than a year.
• The labor union helping to organize video game workers told the Federal Trade Commission it supports Microsoft’s bid to buy Activision Blizzard in a letter Thursday.

That’s it for today. Thanks for reading and check out The Hill’s Finance page for the latest news and coverage. We’ll see you tomorrow. 

VIEW FULL VERSION HERE

Source: TEST FEED1