ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT RIDERS: Top appropriators have released text for their final spending bills – but there’s a bit of a contradiction in how the parties are messaging what’s included.

Senate appropriators had promised to keep controversial riders, such as ones that would roll back the Biden administration’s climate policies, out of the bills. But a few managed to stay in the final text. 

Here’s a rundown of what’s in the bill, and how both parties are messaging the bills: 

A provision preventing the Biden administration from banning gas stoves: Tucked away in the bill is a line prohibiting funding to the Consumer Product Safety Commission to enact any regulation banning gas stoves. Previous finalized appropriations bills included similar measures – but this is the first gas stoves policy rider that has a chance of being passed into law. Note that the commission has not enacted any regulation banning gas stoves, but rather has requested information on public health harms associated with the appliance. 

But here’s where it gets tricky: The Democratic and Republican breakdowns of the legislation pertaining to climate spending seem to contradict each other.  

Funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program: The program, which helps low-income households with heating and cooling costs, would not receive new funding, according to House Republicans, but would be funded with capped discretionary resources. However, a rundown of the legislation from the Senate touted $4 billion for the program, noting it’s a $25 million increase over fiscal year 2023. 

Climate spending in defense appropriations bill: House Republicans touted defense appropriations would cut $574 million from climate change programs and projects in the president’s budget request, maintaining the bill retains 79% of cuts included in the House version of the bill. 

However, House Democrats outlined a $1 billion increase in climate change and resilience funds at the Department of Defense. Senators stated that the bill would include $3.47 billion, an increase of $973 million over fiscal year 2023, to strengthen climate and energy resiliency at military installations. Note that the Republican messaging is in comparison to President Joe Biden’s budget request – not current funding levels. 

The takeaway: Overall, House Republican messaging states that the spending bills would make cuts to climate accounts spearheaded by the administration, and require that the programs seek an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy production. In contrast, House Democrats maintain that the bill reaffirms commitments to combat climate change. The contradicting messages underlines the efforts of both parties to get the bills across the finish line ahead of a government shutdown deadline this weekend, after the passage of four stopgap spending bills and internal fights over funding. 

Welcome to Daily on Energy, written by Washington Examiner Energy and Environment writers Breanne Deppisch (@breannue_dep) and Nancy Vu (@NancyVu99). Email bdeppisch@washingtonexaminer dot com or 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. 

HOUSE GOP PASSES FIRST ‘ENERGY WEEK’ BILLS: The House of Representatives voted to approve two energy bills yesterday, the first tranche of six energy-focused bills set for votes this week as Republicans seek to present voters with an alternative to the Biden administration’s policies, as we outlined earlier this week.

Members voted 229 to 118 to approve H.R. 1121, the Protecting American Energy Production Act, introduced by Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, which would prohibit a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracking. 

They also voted 216 to 200 to approve H.R. 6009, the Restoring American Energy Dominance Act. That bill was introduced by Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, and would block the Bureau of Land Management’s proposed rule to reform oil and gas leasing regulations and charge companies higher royalties to drill on public land.

Read more from Breanne here.

…THE SECOND TRANCHE IS UP FOR VOTES TODAY: The chamber will vote on the remaining four energy bills today.

Among them are H.R. 7023, or the Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act. Introduced by Rep. David Rouzer of North Carolina, the bill is meant to streamline the permitting process for project approval under NEPA and the Clean Water Act—namely by codifying the reissuance process and by requiring EPA to give project holders notice two years before a general permit expires.

H. Res. 987, introduced by Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washington, denounces the “harmful” energy policies of the Biden administration, including limiting oil and gas drilling on federal lands, temporarily halting the authorization of new LNG export terminal approvals, and pursuing other policies that Newhouse and Republicans argue have pushed up energy costs, including gas prices. 

Meanwhile, a concurrent resolution from Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana castigates the prospect of a carbon tax, which it argues would increase energy costs and send more U.S. jobs overseas. 

Finally, H. R. 1023, introduced by Rep. Gary Palmer of Alabama would repeal section 134 of the Clean Air Act. That program is funded under the Inflation Reduction Act and allocates some $27 billion to reducing emissions in low-income U.S. communities.

We’ll be watching today’s votes to see how many House Democrats cross party lines to vote for any of these measures. 

NUCLEAR PROPONENTS MAKE THEIR CASE IN EUROPE: Top nuclear energy proponents in the European Union are slated to make their case at a summit in Brussels today, seeking to win over the support of other countries in the bloc that remain tepid—or downright opposed—to the prospect of rebuilding the bloc’s nuclear power industry after years of preparations to retire plants. 

EU leaders are looking to square their goals on climate change and emissions reduction with the bloc’s broader struggle to supplant fossil fuels with enough utility-scale renewables, and ones that they can reliably turn to for dispatchable, or baseload capacity. 

In many ways, the 180 degree shift has mirrored the situation in the U.S., where safety concerns—especially following the 2011 nuclear disaster at Japan’s Fukushima power plant, prompted a push to phase out or retire many plants. 

Since then, leaders have warmed to atomic energy yet again in recognition that the carbon-free source of power will be critical to helping countries deliver on their emissions reduction targets. This shift was on prominent display last December in Dubai, when more than 20 countries, including the U.S., signed onto a pledge to triple their nuclear capacity by 2050. 

In the EU, the nuclear debate has taken on outsize importance as countries look to diversify energy sources and move away from Russian fossil fuels. France, which relies on nuclear for the largest percentage of its energy mix, has headed up the pro-nuclear faction, while Austria and Germany are leading another group of member states arguing that the bloc should keep its focus on renewable resources like wind and solar. 

But the issues for Europe go beyond simply whether or not to expand atomic energy. Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo noted today that leaders must also divest from Russia in their nuclear energy supply chains as quickly as possible. Read more on the summit—and the many issues leaders will attempt to address in Brussels—here.

….BIROL JOINS PRO-NUCLEAR PUSH: International Energy Agency director Fatih Birol also stressed the importance of nuclear energy to a group of reporters outside the summit hours earlier. Birol, who is also in Brussels to attend the conference, told the group that without the support of nuclear power, “we have no chance to reach our climate targets on time.”

“Renewables will play a major role in terms of electricity, especially solar, supported by wind and hydro power,” Birol said. “But we also need nuclear power, especially in those countries where we do not have a major renewable potential.” 

… SPEAKING OF BIROL: Top Republicans on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter to Birol today highlighting concerns that the IEA has “abandoned its energy security mission” and urging Birol to return the agency’s focus to what they say are key issues of energy security. 

In the letter, Sen. John Barrasso and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers argue that the IEA’s  emphasis on “build[ing] net-zero emission energy systems” to comply with climate goals has led the IEA to “veer away from objectively informing and educating policymakers” and instead moved it toward “promoting an agenda with little regard to its implications for economic growth and energy security.”

They ask Birol to respond to a series of questions about the IEA’s recent work, including its decision to depart from issuing a policy-neutral Current Policies Scenario (CPS) in authoring publications such as its annual World Energy Outlook, and driving what the lawmakers argue is IEA’s outsize focus on the transition to renewable energy resources in recent reports. 

The emphasis on renewables and the decision to forgo CPS,  the lawmakers argue, has undermined IEA’s longtime reputation for impartiality—and allowed the Biden administration to use IEA forecasts to advance certain policies, including the recent pause on new LNG export project approvals that Republicans argue risks undermining energy security. Read the letter in full here. 

RUNDOWN 

Politico ‘Fear’ and farmland in the Montana Senate race

Wall Street Journal How the SEC climate rule won over vocal opponents