AMENDMENTS TO WATCH: The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is set to mark up Sen. Joe Manchin and Sen. John Barrasso ’s high-profile permitting reform proposal tomorrow – and a number of amendments have been filed to be added to the bill.
The list, which was circulated by communications and lobbying firm Lot Sixteen, details a number of amendments that deal with localized issues – but others relating to renewable energy, offshore projects, cost allocation of transmission, and much more.
Roughly 60 amendments have been filed ahead of the mark-up. Here’s a few that have caught our eye.
A measure from Sens.
Ron Wyden, Alex Padilla , and
Maria Cantwell that would permanently prohibit offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.
A measure from Sen.
Martin Heinrich that would establish a Renewable Energy Resource Conservation Fund, and a
separate measure that would promote the development of renewable energy on public land. A
measure from Sens.
Angus King, Lisa Murkowski, and
James Risch that would provide judicial review limits.
An amendment from King that would modify the deadline by which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must grant or deny an application under the Natural Gas Act. A
measure from Sen.
Steve Daines and Murkowski that would address the vacatur of authorizations for environmental documents. A
separate measure from Sens. Daines, Murkowski, and
Cindy Hyde-Smith that would require oil and gas leases in certain states, improve federal energy mineral leasing processes, and address oil and gas leasing programs in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
Why this is important: This is the first hurdle for the bill before it can pass out of committee – and any major changes to the bill could change the calculus for its passage. We’ll keep you updated on what amendments made it into the bill, and what didn’t.
Welcome to Daily on Energy, written by Washington Examiner Energy and Environment writer Nancy Vu ( @NancyVu99 ), with help from policy editor Joseph Lawler . Email nancy.vu@washingtonexaminer dot com for tips, suggestions, calendar items, and anything else. If a friend sent this to you and you’d like to sign up, click here . If signing up doesn’t work, shoot us an email, and we’ll add you to our list.
OUTDOOR RECREATION BILL TO NDAA? Top senators are looking to attach an outdoor recreation bill to the annual defense package – a move that could create a pathway to passage.
As E&E News outlines, Manchin had submitted his version of the “Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences (EXPLORE) Act,” to the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act.
What does the bill do? The measure, which passed the House earlier this year, is a sweeping piece of legislation that would aim to improve access to public parks and waters. The bill aims to modernize technology to improve visitor experiences, streamline the permitting process for small businesses, restore campgrounds, and more.
But: It’s not guaranteed that the amendment will be attached. Read more on that here.
ANOTHER LETTER ON LNG: More than 50 House lawmakers signed onto a bipartisan letter pushing the Biden administration to comply with a federal court order and end its pause on liquified natural gas export permits.
The deets: As Fox News reports, the letter – led by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington – was signed by 46 Republicans and four Democrats, who called for the Department of Energy to reverse the LNG pause because it undermines cheap energy costs.
The Democrats who signed on : Rep. Lou Correa, Henry Cuellar, Jim Costa , and Jared Golden .
Some background: U.S. District Judge James Cain – a Trump appointee – granted 16 states’ request for an emergency stay on the pause, arguing the move harmed their economies. In his order, Cain asserted that the DOE’s actions were “completely without reason or logic and is perhaps the epiphany of ideocracy.”
Read the letter here.
AN ESG PROBE BY HOUSE JUDICIARY: House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Subcommittee Chairman Thomas Massie sent letters to more than 130 companies, retirement systems, and government pension programs about their involvement with investor-led green group Climate Action 100+.
What it says: The letters explain the committee is conducting oversight on the enforcement of antitrust laws, and is asking the various entities on how they have engaged with Climate Action 100+. The lawmakers are also requesting documents relating to their role as an investor signatory of the group, and their efforts to advance ESG-related goals.
Why this is important: This is another effort from Republican lawmakers to go after ESG investing – and a number of investors have responded. The letter notes that since the beginning of the committee’s investigation of ESG, several of the world’s largest asset managers – including BlackRock, J.P. Morgan, and Invesco – have publicly withdrawn from Climate Action 100+, and nearly a dozen signatories retreated within the last six months. Read the letters here .
THE LEGALITY OF US CLAIMS TO SEABED FLOOR: Russia and China are claiming that the U.S.’s ownership of a vast seabed region has no merit in international law, Bloomberg reports.
During a session of the International Seabed Authority, government officials from both governments pushed back against the U.S. announcement that it would add 1 million square kilometers to its continental shelf in the Bering Sea, Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico. The regions surround the state of Alaska, along with the east and west coast of the U.S.
Countries that have ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea undertake a long process to collectively agree where the lines of demarcation are for underwater continental shelves – which can determine where countries have economic rights to the seabed regions, and the minerals that lie underneath.
However, the U.S. hasn’t ratified the U.N. convention, and its claims could endanger the integrity of the law and strain international relations, Russia’s representative said. China’s representative argued that the U.S. doesn’t have the right to assert these claims, and shouldn’t reap the benefits of the international law without ratifying it – an act China did in 1996.
The U.S. representative, however, defended the nation’s continental shelf claims, saying it followed the rules of convention. More on that here.
RUNDOWN
Canary Media This nuclear waste site could soon host a massive solar installation
Energy News Network Critics, studies cast doubt on Maine’s claims of climate benefits from highway expansion
Washington Examiner Industry groups coalesce around Manchin-Barrasso permitting reform bill
Most Popular
Comments / 0