ABC’s Weekly Federal Legislative Update
January 26, 2014
Introduction
The Senate will vote this week on legislation to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline
setting up a likely veto from the White House. Currently, there are not enough votes
in the Senate to override a veto.
Next up, HR 240, the House passed bill that would fund the Department of
Homeland Security for the remainder of the year but also bar President Obama from
implementing his executive order delaying deportation of certain classes of
undocumented immigrants. It’s no surprise that this bill is also drawing a veto
threat.
House Democrats will be in Philadelphia from Wednesday on for their party
legislative retreat. President Obama will be returning from his trip to India and
Saudi Arabia and joining the retreat on Thursday.
Administration
Administration Energy Priorities in the State of the Union
President Obama delivered his annual State of the Union address last Tuesday.
This story is included as it outlines his priorities for the next two years including
an emphasis on mitigating climate change.
E&E Daily reporter Robin Bravender submitted on January 21, “President Obama
has declared a climate and energy war against the new GOP-led Congress.
“The president derided climate change deniers, lashed out at those fixated on the
Keystone XL oil pipeline and pledged to fight efforts to roll back his environmental
policies in his first State of the Union address before two Republican-held chambers.
His aggressive tone on energy sets the stage for two years of bitter battles with the
GOP on a range of issues.
“But even though he's facing more opposition in Congress than ever before, Obama
sketched out his most liberal agenda to date and appeared confident and at times
almost defiant during his hour-long speech.
“Even as Obama urged lawmakers to move beyond partisan fights, he made it clear
that he's got no plans to back down on his top agenda items. "I've got no more
campaigns to run," he said, adding, as Republicans began to cheer, "I know because I
won both of them. My only agenda for the next two years is the same as the one I've
had since the day I swore an oath on the steps of this Capitol -- to do what I believe
is best for America."
“On climate change, Obama's remarks were the most forceful he's made in his seven
years of annual speeches before Congress.
"No challenge -- no challenge -- poses a greater threat to future generations than
climate change," Obama said, citing reports that 2014 was the planet's warmest year
on record.
“And he derided a popular talking point used by some GOP politicians: that they're
not qualified to weigh in on climate change because they're not scientists.
"I've heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they're not scientists, that
we don't have enough information to act," Obama said. "Well, I'm not a scientist,
either. But you know what, I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA,
and at our major universities.
"The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the
climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we'll continue to see rising oceans, longer,
hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can
trigger greater migration, conflict and hunger around the globe. The Pentagon says
that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act
like it."CONGRESSIONAL REACTIO
“In his first State of the Union address before a Republican-controlled Congress,
President Obama received strong, partisan reaction to his climate and energy
proposals.
“He touted his administration's regulatory efforts to combat climate change and
signaled that he's planning to stick to his guns, despite the newly empowered GOP's
promising to fight his administration's raft of executive actions.
"Over the past six years, we've done more than ever before to combat climate
change, from the way we produce energy to the way we use it," Obama said. "That's
why we've set aside more public lands and waters than any administration in
history. And that's why I will not let this Congress endanger the health of our
children by turning back the clock on our efforts."
“And Obama pledged continued efforts to drive international action, boasting of the
deal reached last year between the United States and China to cut greenhouse gas
emissions. "And because the world's two largest economies came together, other
nations are now stepping up, and offering hope that this year the world will finally
reach an agreement to protect the one planet we've got," he said.
“The tone was a marked departure from some of his previous State of the Union
speeches. In 2011, for instance -- the year before Obama's re-election campaign -the word "climate" didn't even make it into the address.
“Obama also used the speech to take aim at the lawmakers looking to force his hand
on the hot-button Keystone XL oil pipeline.
"Twenty-first-century businesses need 21st-century infrastructure -- modern ports,
stronger bridges, faster trains and the fastest Internet. Democrats and Republicans
used to agree on this," he said. "So let's set our sights higher than a single oil
pipeline. Let's pass a bipartisan infrastructure plan that could create more than 30
times as many jobs per year and make this country stronger for decades to come."
“Congressional Republicans have made legislation to approve the controversial oil
pipeline from Canada one of their top priorities this year, despite a looming White
House veto threat.
“Obama has yet to say whether he would kill the pipeline project outright after a full
State Department review, but it's clear he isn't very enamored of it -- even though all
Republicans and many Democrats in Congress are.
“Obama's comments drew immediate criticism from KXL's backers, but praise from
greens opposed to the project.
“In response to Obama's call to move beyond the "single oil pipeline," Senator Joe
Manchin (WV) joked, "I was hopeful he wanted to build more than one pipeline."
Senator Cory Gardner (CO) said, "I felt like the president was taking a jab at anyone
who supports the Keystone pipeline. I thought it was inappropriate, actually."
“He added, "I think it signals to the American people that the president's speech
about working together has some significant loopholes."
“Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, said, "We couldn't
agree more with President Obama that we must set our sights higher than a single
oil pipeline. On the heels of the hottest year on record, it's time for Republican
leaders in Congress to finally stand with the majority of Americans who support the
president's climate agenda."
“On infrastructure more broadly, Obama called for passage of a bipartisan plan but
offered no specifics, apart from suggesting that it could be financed by closing tax
loopholes on U.S. businesses' overseas earnings to "make it more attractive for
companies to bring jobs home."
“In contrast to previous speeches, Obama notably left out a reference to an "all of the
above" energy policy. He's used the phrase in the past to show support for a range of
fossil and renewable energy sources, but it's riled greens, who have urged the
administration to prioritize renewables.
“He bragged last night about domestic "booming energy production," stating, "we
are as free from the grip of foreign oil as we've been in almost 30 years." Obama
made specific references to oil and gas, wind power and solar, but didn't mention
coal or nuclear power.
"Today, America is No. 1 in oil and gas. America is No. 1 in wind power. Every three
weeks, we bring online as much solar power as we did in all of 2008. And thanks to
lower gas prices and higher fuel standards, the typical family this year should save
$750 at the pump," Obama said.
“His failure to utter the words "all of the above" did not go unnoticed.
“Representative Bob Latta (OH) suggested that Obama appeared to be favoring
certain sectors of the energy industry over others.
"We shouldn't be picking winners and losers," he said.
“And Obama's comments didn't suffice for some in the energy industry.
"America's energy renaissance has profoundly strengthened our economy and is
helping the president fulfill many of his policy goals. But his speech did not even
begin to tell the whole story," said Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum
Institute. "America is now a global energy superpower thanks to our oil and natural
gas renaissance, but most of this development has occurred in spite of the federal
government."
“Senator Rob Portman (OH) said he would keep an open mind but faulted the
president for failing to boost energy efficiency in his discussion of energy and
infrastructure policy. Portman is one of the leading efficiency champions in
Congress and succeeded yesterday in attaching a modest efficiency amendment to
the KXL bill making its way through the Senate.
"He was pretty strident in the first half of the speech, yet in the second half said he'd
like to hear our ideas," Portman said. "So hopefully, we can have a debate on some of
this. Energy efficiency is just one example where Republicans and Democrats alike
want to try to make progress on jobs, on energy security and on less emissions and
less pollution."
“Other lawmakers said infrastructure generally could be another area of common
ground between the two parties.
"Everyone knows we have a problem with our crumbling infrastructure in this
country," said Representative Janice Hahn (CA). "We know that if we propose to fix
it, we put it back to work."
Reporters Nick Juliano, Sean Reilly, Ariel Wittenberg and Matthew Herbert
contributed.
Congress
Renewable Fuel Standard
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a USA federal program that requires
transportation fuel sold in the U.S. to contain a minimum volume of renewable
fuels. The RFS originated with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and was expanded
and extended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In
November of 2013, in a notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA significantly
reduced the 2014 Renewable Fuel Volume. ABC, along with other renewable fuel
groups, strongly advocated an increase the proposed 2014 volumes. In late
November of 2014, the EPA declined to issue the 2014 RVO instead saying that it
would issue three years of RVOs (2014, 2015, and 2016) in 2015. The EPA’s lack
of RFS leadership has encouraged detractors of the law. The following story is
included as it contains an update about efforts to amend or repeal the law.
On January 23, Amanda Peterka of E&E Daily reported, “Republican legislation
introduced this week in the House would significantly scale back the federal biofuel
mandate.
Representative Michael Burgess (TX) on Wednesday introduced H.R. 434, which
would eliminate the 2007 expansion of the renewable fuel standard.
Congress passed the first RFS into law in 2005, requiring that 2.78 percent of
gasoline used in the United States be ethanol. Two years later, lawmakers expanded
the RFS to call for 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022 through a combination of
conventional ethanol and advanced biofuels.
Burgess' office did not respond to a request for comment on the introduced bill. The
measure is among the first of many expected pieces of legislation this year by
ethanol foes who want to unravel the RFS.
Last Congress, the Texas Republican sponsored legislation that would scale back
corn ethanol requirements, as well as reverse decisions by U.S. EPA to allow more
ethanol to be used in gasoline. The "Leave Ethanol Volumes at Existing Levels Act"
was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee but did not receive any
hearings or votes.
Keystone XL Pipeline Legislation
Legislation approving the Keystone XL Pipeline has already passed the House
and is working its way through the Senate. The story is included in this update
as it involves the new GOP controlled Congress moving early on a contentious
energy issue that has drawn considerable opposition from Democrats. In many
ways, the method in which this bill is handled will significantly affect the future
tone and working style between Senate Republicans and Democrats and
between the GOP Congress and the White House.
E&E Daily reporter Manuel Quinones wrote on January 26, “Key Senate lawmakers
worked through the weekend to discuss ways of moving forward with debate over
the legislation to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline -- plus a host of pending
amendments.
“A vote is scheduled for this afternoon on a procedural motion, which would have
the effect of setting aside nongermane amendments to the bill. It means the Senate
could move toward final passage by the end of the week.
“Senators have already approved, rejected or tabled roughly two dozen
amendments. Another batch is pending and could also get votes this evening under
a bipartisan agreement. In all, lawmakers have introduced more than 100
amendments to the bill.
“KXL bill backers hope they'll have enough votes to approve the cloture motion. But
there is a concern that some pro-pipeline Democrats could vote no, in protest of last
week's GOP procedural moves.
“Senator Heidi Heitkamp (ND), one of the strongest KXL backers in the chamber,
expressed disappointment over GOP moves to table Democratic amendments and
move toward cloture in a long and sometimes acrimonious Thursday evening
session.
"As we move forward on this bill, I hope to get votes on my amendments and many
others that Senators wish to bring up so the Senate can fully debate and vote on
legislation, and get to work," she said in a statement. "That's our job and it's what
the American people want us to do."
“Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (AK), leading the
debate on the Republican side, said the GOP majority would have likely filed cloture
by the end of last week whether or not Thursday's procedural disagreements came
to light.
“Murkowski noted that the Senate has been on the KXL bill since the beginning of
the month and will likely stay on it through the end of the week, perhaps even as she
and energy panel ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) prepare for a longawaited hearing on natural gas exports.
"That's a long time to devote to one bill," Murkowski told reporters Friday. "And
we've got way too many things on deck to do that for every bill."
“Murkowski, who said she took a break from Thursday's proceedings to pop open a
jar of salmon, said she doesn't see any disagreements jeopardizing her ability to
work with Cantwell on broader energy legislation later in the year, perhaps her top
goal for the 114th Congress.
"I will do my best to ensure the Senate approves broad energy legislation this year.
The last time that happened was in 2007. That was a time of scarcity, but America is
now producing more energy than ever before," Murkowski said during the GOP's
weekly national radio address this weekend.
“The chairwoman told reporters Friday, "I know that in order to get things done
around here, you've got to be able to talk to people and they have to be willing to
listen to you or at least work with you."
“Murkowski added, "I'm going to have two years with Maria Cantwell sitting next to
me in the Energy Committee, and I'm going to figure out those ways we're going to
be working together. And if it means I've got to say 'Go Seahawks,' I will."
“Even with the sometimes contentious discussions last week, Murkowski said many
colleagues greeted the floor action as a return of "the old days."
“Lawmakers knew the Republican pledge of regular order meant they would begin
encountering tactics and procedures that had been seldom used in recent months.
“The new majority also had to remember how to run the chamber. That's why
Murkowski said her personal and energy panel staff took a refresher with the Senate
parliamentarian in advance of the KXL deliberations.
“Democrats were caught off-guard by at least some GOP moves last week to table
their amendments. Murkowski said both sides had a deal to move forward with
amendments needing 60 votes to pass.
"But that does not mean [the deal] requires it," she said. "It does allow for other
procedural actions, which includes the procedural action of a tabling motion."
“The disagreement gave Democrats fodder to accuse the Republicans of shutting
down debate and breaking their regular order pledge. And even though Republicans
say they have already voted on more amendments so far this year than all of last,
Democrats say it's because of their constructive cooperation.
"Sadly, it only took three weeks for the Republican Senate to shut down debate,"
said Senate Democratic spokesman Adam Jentleson. And trying to rebut GOP claims
of always wanting to work toward regular order, Jentleson said, "By a conservative
count, Republicans blocked 73 amendments last Congress -- and realistically many,
many more."
“Murkowski said, "I would be embarrassed to make that statement if I were on the
other side of the aisle," because of the way the Senate has operated in recent years.
"Keep in mind, just because cloture has been filed, doesn't mean that we are off
Keystone, that there is nothing further coming by way of amendment or debate," she
said.
“Murkowski lamented that Democrats had prevented the majority from merging
two different but identical KXL bills. That means, for now, there will have to be two
different cloture votes.
"It would have been so beneficial for them to give on this first cloture motion," she
said. "But I think what you had is you had folks on their side who felt very strongly
that Keystone is a measure they don't want to see enacted."
“Murkowski said there was a desire within the GOP majority to move toward a
conclusion to the debate. But she expressed hope that the end would prove positive.
Murkowski said the KXL debate will have likely "laid the marker for a process where
members on both sides of the aisle recognize that there will be opportunities to
weigh in on legislation that is before us on the floor and offer amendments."
“Last week, senators agreed with a "sense of the Senate" amendment to eventually
close a loophole that currently allows Canadian oil sands producers to avoid paying
into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
“They rejected an amendment by Senator Ron Wyden (OR) to make the change right
away. Many GOP lawmakers noted that revenue measures had to originate in the
House.
“The Senate tabled an amendment by Senator Ed Markey (MA) to get around the
constitutional requirement by saying the KXL bill could not take effect until
Congress closed the loophole.
“Senate lawmakers have until this afternoon to file first-degree germane
amendments and second-degree amendments for post-cloture debate. They could
also agree to vote on these already pending measures:



An amendment by Senator Ben Cardin (MD) to allow communities to protect
water resources from KXL.
An amendment by Senator Dan Sullivan (AK) to disarm U.S. EPA agents in
response to a multi-agency enforcement action near the community of Chicken,
Alaska.
An amendment by Murkowski to provide climate mitigation funding to Arctic
regions of the United States.





An amendment by Senator Jeff Flake (AZ) to push evaluation and
consolidation of green building programs.
An amendment by Senator Steve Daines (MT) to prevent new national
monuments without the consent of local officials.
An amendment by Senator Ted Cruz (TX) to expedite natural gas exports.
An amendment by Senator Jerry Moran (KS) to undo the listing of the lesser
prairie chicken as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
An amendment by Louisiana Republican Sens. David Vitter and Bill Cassidy
to promote offshore drilling and revenue distribution to states.
Other
CA will be able to meet state emissions reductions targets with existing policies
On January 23, ClimateWire reporter Debra Kahn submitted, “Existing and planned
policies are sufficient to significantly reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions
through 2030, but more is needed to propel reductions through the middle of the
century, a new study finds.
“Policies like the state's renewable portfolio standard, the phasing out of coal power,
and fuel efficiency standards for new vehicles will effectively lower emissions
through at least 2030, according to an analysis published in the journal Energy
Policy by Jeffery Greenblatt, a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory.
"We can get really low emissions by 2030 if the state does some additional
measures," Greenblatt said. "On the order of as much as 40 percent below the 1990
levels looks like it might be possible."
“In line with other analyses of California's emissions trajectory, it finds that "[n]ew
and/or strengthened policies ... will be needed for California to continue to reduce
emissions through 2050."
“California officials have already estimated that from 2020 onward, emissions will
have to decline at more than twice the rate needed to reach the existing target of
1990 levels by 2020.
“Governor Jerry Brown (D) earlier this month proposed a suite of new goals,
including increasing the state's share of renewables to 50 percent, halving
petroleum use and doubling the efficiency of existing buildings by 2030.
“The California Air Resources Board (ARB), which commissioned an earlier version
of the study, said it showed the efficacy of current policies.
"These findings show that California is on the right track with our existing policies
to reach mid- and long-term climate goals," ARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols said.
"We don't need elaborate new technologies or policies. We just need to double down
and accelerate the greenhouse gas reductions these policies deliver in the years and
decades after 2020."
“The study analyzes the effects of 49 existing and envisioned policies on all
greenhouse gas-emitting sectors, including electricity, transportation, buildings,
waste and forestry.
“It leaves out the state's cap-and-trade program, which serves as a sort of backstop
emissions-reduction policy, in order to tease out the effects of other policies on
emissions levels.
“Current and envisioned policies would get California only two-thirds of the way to
its goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Depending on which policies are
implemented, emissions in 2050 could range from 59 percent below to 7 percent
above 1990 levels. If even current policies are abandoned, emissions would reach
148 percent of 1990 levels by 2050.
“While the strictest trajectory would miss the 2050 emissions goal itself, it would
achieve the same amount of cumulative emissions that would be allowed through
2050 if the goal is reached. That points to the potential significance of expressing
goals in terms of cumulative emissions, rather than as an endpoint target, Greenblatt
says.
"Such a pathway of early emissions reductions may confer important climate
benefits as well as offer compliance flexibility," the paper says. "Therefore,
policymakers both in California and elsewhere might consider establishing
cumulative emissions budgets in lieu of annual emissions targets when setting
future policy targets."