Speaker 1: Today we're gonna be talking about arguably the most hated
Speaker 1: man in the world among environmentalists, at least at the
Speaker 1: moment right now, the senior Senator from West Virginia, Democrat
Speaker 1: Joe Mansion. He all but killed the president's last hopes
Speaker 1: were passing a big climate bill, and will explain how
Speaker 1: and why. Hello and welcome back yet again two Parts
Speaker 1: per Billion, the Environmental podcast from Bloomberg Law. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: David Schultz. So today is gonna be a Capitol Hill episode.
Speaker 1: Perhaps you've heard, but Senator Mansion said earlier this month,
Speaker 1: last week actually that he won't support the climate provisions
Speaker 1: within the President's Build Back Better legislative package. Mansion said,
Speaker 1: the latest inflation numbers make it unwise right now for
Speaker 1: Congress to increase the deficit. This was a huge blow,
Speaker 1: of course, because Mansion is the fiftieth and thus most
Speaker 1: powerful Democrat in the Senate. Without him, the party can't
Speaker 1: really pass hardly anything. It was also a bitter pill
Speaker 1: for the president because this is not the first time
Speaker 1: Mansion has come out against the President's climate legists Lasian.
Speaker 1: In fact, Democrats had already scaled back their ambitions in
Speaker 1: an effort to accommodate Mansion, an effort that now appears
Speaker 1: to have failed. Environmentalists are not happy to put it mildly,
Speaker 1: but the center managine of a point. Is he just
Speaker 1: tanking this legislation because of his famous affection for the
Speaker 1: coal industry or is he really that concerned about inflation.
Speaker 1: We're gonna get into all of that with Ari Natter,
Speaker 1: a Bloomberg News reporter who covers energy on Capitolol Hill
Speaker 1: and who coincidentally is a proud Bloomberg law alum. I
Speaker 1: started off by asking Ari, what was actually in the
Speaker 1: legislation that Mansion effectively quashed last week? Right? Well, um,
Speaker 1: you know, initially it was a lot bigger before mentioned
Speaker 1: killed it the first time. But the remaining package what
Speaker 1: was been negotiated include a whole slow of tax credits
Speaker 1: and we're talking to something like three billion dollars and
Speaker 1: tax credits for phicles and renewables and advanced emergy manufacturing
Speaker 1: and carbon capture. And that was where the start of
Speaker 1: the show in terms of climate and that would have
Speaker 1: reduced the missions. So it sounds like it was, you know,
Speaker 1: mainly using the tax code to to try to accomplish
Speaker 1: this Yeah, that's what was was pretty much left and
Speaker 1: and a lot of the stuff that had initially been
Speaker 1: in the package, you know, some pretty state fees on
Speaker 1: new drilling infrastructure for instance. You know, got um you know,
Speaker 1: put in the waist bin. But yeah, the text there
Speaker 1: really there, really were going to marshal the tax code. Um.
Speaker 1: It sounds like it would have had some pretty significant
Speaker 1: emission reductions. So let's now get to the second death blow. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know what happened this month? Um? So Senator Mansion
Speaker 1: said he was not ready to vote for this um
Speaker 1: and obviously the Democrats need him to pass anything. Can
Speaker 1: you explain what happened and why he is opposing this? Sure? Yeah, So,
Speaker 1: I mean after months of negotiating on these climate revisions,
Speaker 1: including the tax measures. Um, you know, the new inflation
Speaker 1: figures came out that's inflation at nine point one percent
Speaker 1: and mentioned informed leadership it won't support any new climate spending,
Speaker 1: you know, only you know, a smaller package that would
Speaker 1: be limited to the A C, A and prescription drug prices.
Speaker 1: So that effectively killed the climate package in the in
Speaker 1: the deal. So you know, I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people who are listening probably know that Senator Mansion represents
Speaker 1: West Virginia, which is a big coal state. He also
Speaker 1: has personal ties to the coal industry. So I think
Speaker 1: some people are assuming that he's doing this because he,
Speaker 1: you know it, is wanting to to sort of protect
Speaker 1: the coal industry. But that's not what he said. He
Speaker 1: said he's he's you know, opposing this for inflation reasons.
Speaker 1: What's going on? I mean, we can't get inside his head,
Speaker 1: but uh, why do you think he is really sort
Speaker 1: of taking this move now right? I don't think it's
Speaker 1: as simple as um simply supporting his homestead call industry. Personally,
Speaker 1: I do think he was concerned about inflation and he
Speaker 1: hasn't ring the alarm bell uh for some time. Um.
Speaker 1: And also he hasn't the power where he could. He's
Speaker 1: really a position to get some stuff that would help
Speaker 1: his industry, and he had. I mean, they were very
Speaker 1: generous subsidies for carbon capture that would have saved and
Speaker 1: provide coal plants billions of billions of dollars. Shouldn't was
Speaker 1: ready to give him um tax credits for hydrogen vehicles, um,
Speaker 1: you know, on par with the generous tax credits for
Speaker 1: electric vehicles. So I mean if Manchel wanted to do this.
Speaker 1: He really, I mean, he really could have helped you know,
Speaker 1: the coal industry too, you know, much of the shrigment
Speaker 1: of progressives. So I do think I do believe that
Speaker 1: he was concerned about inflation. That's really interesting. So basically
Speaker 1: sort of too to put it in another way, like
Speaker 1: you know, do voting on this package would have actually
Speaker 1: helped the coal industry in its state. Yeah, that's that's accurate. Mansion. Actually, well,
Speaker 1: he didn't technically say this plan is dead. He just
Speaker 1: said he wanted to wait until after the August recess
Speaker 1: to see what inflation is looking like then. But is
Speaker 1: it basically dead? I mean, is there any chance that
Speaker 1: something climate related will be able to pass in September
Speaker 1: whence they come back from the recess. I know some Democrats,
Speaker 1: some climate hats, are holding out hope for that, but
Speaker 1: I don't think that's going to be possible. Um, it's
Speaker 1: just gonna be too hard to do a second reconciliation
Speaker 1: bill in the time they have. Um I've required, you know,
Speaker 1: a lot of time, and these these all night vote
Speaker 1: aramas they have to pass a new budget resolution. So um,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't I don't think that's going to happen.
Speaker 1: And um, you know a lot of senators I've talked to, uh,
Speaker 1: you know Merkley from Oregon for instance, and he's he's
Speaker 1: pretty much said, flat out dead. Well, let's let's take
Speaker 1: a step back there though, and talk about reconciliation. You know,
Speaker 1: I mean a lot of people listening may not be
Speaker 1: totally familiar with the Capitol Hill lingo. Uh, this is
Speaker 1: a maneuver on Capitol Hill where you can pass a
Speaker 1: bill without by avoiding the sixty vote filibuster threshold. Can
Speaker 1: you get into a little bit why they need the
Speaker 1: Democrats need to use reconciliation and how that works right, Well,
Speaker 1: like you said, so this is a chance to get
Speaker 1: around that sixty vote thresholders that they don't have and
Speaker 1: evenly split fifty fifty. So this is their one chance
Speaker 1: so they can get all of the Democrats on board
Speaker 1: to actually get some major major legislation done. But um,
Speaker 1: and that's also why they need Mansion, That's why it's
Speaker 1: so powerful in this And it sounds like there's no
Speaker 1: chance that they would hold off on doing reconciliation until
Speaker 1: after the recess. That's just a no go. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean Biden put a statement, you know, effectively saying, you know,
Speaker 1: do the do the healthcare stuff and the prescription dug
Speaker 1: drug stuff. They need to get a win on on board,
Speaker 1: and even if it's smaller before the mid term elections
Speaker 1: and they go back for their August reassessed to campaign
Speaker 1: and so I mean they're pretty much in a position
Speaker 1: of doing this or nothing. Yeah, that makes sense. Um,
Speaker 1: let's get to the future now. Um, you know clearly
Speaker 1: this is not going to happen these big tax breaks
Speaker 1: for climate um you know, as you mentioned, or it's
Speaker 1: all but dead, if not dead. Is there any climate
Speaker 1: legislation that Democrats can pass before the end of this
Speaker 1: session of Congress, like even sort of smaller stuff, piecemeal stuff,
Speaker 1: or is is this over until you know January of
Speaker 1: next year for climate? The actually is, David, there's something
Speaker 1: called the Amendment UM. This would have the US join
Speaker 1: international Pact to phase down the use of hfc's, which
Speaker 1: are kind of a super pollutants. They are used in
Speaker 1: refrigeration and other equipment and that actually have a major,
Speaker 1: major um reduction in emissions. I think Energy See has
Speaker 1: said it's something like, uh, there's seventy billion um. So
Speaker 1: I mean that that would be a big deal and
Speaker 1: a win for climate and um, you know that measures
Speaker 1: past the Form Relations Committee, so it's poised to go
Speaker 1: over the floor. Um, you know when they want to
Speaker 1: do that. Yeah, and that's really interesting. It's you know,
Speaker 1: unlike with the fossil fuel industry, the HFC industry is
Speaker 1: not nearly as powerful, doesn't have as many lobbyists in Washington.
Speaker 1: So it seems like it's you know, a lot more
Speaker 1: viable to to get that across than something that that
Speaker 1: hurts the fossil fuel industry. Right. Yeah, I mean there
Speaker 1: actually are you know, opponents of the amendment, but yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's a by Parson. It has enough by Parson
Speaker 1: support where the past Yeah, and then let's look to
Speaker 1: next year. Um. And the reason why I wanted to
Speaker 1: get into that is because, you know, after Mansion announced
Speaker 1: that he wouldn't be supporting this, I was, you know,
Speaker 1: watching social media, and there was just widespread despair among
Speaker 1: climate activists and environmental activists. I mean, it's pretty bleak.
Speaker 1: Can we talk about why? Um? It seems like the
Speaker 1: next few months or maybe even the next few weeks
Speaker 1: are really the only opportunity to get major climate legislation passed.
Speaker 1: Things are looking bad for next year. Let's talk about that.
Speaker 1: Why is it now or never for climate? Yeah? So,
Speaker 1: I mean if Republicans take control of Congress, which it
Speaker 1: seems like they're placed to do, you know, never say never,
Speaker 1: But I mean that's the direction seems like it's going. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't think a major in a climate
Speaker 1: package is going to happen. But um, Also, Republicans do
Speaker 1: have their own um climate legislation now that they're pushing
Speaker 1: that doesn't set a mission reduction targets per se um. Yeah,
Speaker 1: tell me more about that. What is the Republican climate agenda? Right? So,
Speaker 1: I mean the Republican climate agenda is things like innovation
Speaker 1: and R and D spending and nuclear and carbon capture. Um.
Speaker 1: But it's also you know, promoting natural gas and grounds
Speaker 1: that it has a lower emissions profile than call and
Speaker 1: if it's produced in the US, it might be cleaner
Speaker 1: than other countries that don't have stricter environmental standards for it.
Speaker 1: So um, you know that has been their position and
Speaker 1: has Republicans put out a plan earlier the summer they're
Speaker 1: kind of reiterating that, you know, signing plum in control.
Speaker 1: This is the direction we're gonna go. So it's it's
Speaker 1: not nothing, but you know it's it's now a progressive
Speaker 1: activists either. Yeah, that's right. I know that Senator Barrasso
Speaker 1: in particular from Wyoming um is really really into carbon capture.
Speaker 1: That's something he talks about a lot um and I
Speaker 1: think that, you know, it sounds like that's the Republican
Speaker 1: attitude towards this is, let's you know, develop new technology
Speaker 1: that allows us to keep using fossil fuels, whereas Democrats are,
Speaker 1: you know, saying, let's we not ourselves off of fossil fuels.
Speaker 1: That you know, putting it in a nutshell. The difference
Speaker 1: between the two parties in two right now, that's generally awkward.
Speaker 1: I think, Um, yeah, I mean they want to keep
Speaker 1: using fossil fossil fuels. Um, they say I can do
Speaker 1: it in a clear away. Carbon capture is expensive and um,
Speaker 1: you know has had a lot of technical problems. But
Speaker 1: you know, even the Biden administration is putting a lot
Speaker 1: of money into it. So it's not just like the
Speaker 1: hope that's it's on giving all right, Well that was
Speaker 1: already adder with Bloomberg News talking with us about climate
Speaker 1: legislation in Congress or the lack there. Ari, Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for talking. Thanks David, and that's it for
Speaker 1: today's episode of Parts per Billion. If you want more
Speaker 1: environmental news, check us out on Twitter. We used the
Speaker 1: handle at environment just that environment. I'm at David B. Schultz.
Speaker 1: That's b is in build back, better, build back? Something
Speaker 1: who dons? Today's episode of Parts for Billion was produced
Speaker 1: by myself, David Schultz. Parts for Billion was created by
Speaker 1: Jessica Combs and Rachel Dagle and is edited by Zack S.
Speaker 1: Sherwood and Chuck McCutcheon. Our executive producer is Josh Block.
Speaker 1: Thanks everyone for listening. Have you ever thought to yourself,
Speaker 1: how is that legal? Why is that legal? Have you
Speaker 1: ever seen a big try in the news and wondered
Speaker 1: what's really happening there? Have you ever pondered the question
Speaker 1: why are lawyers the way that they are? And how
Speaker 1: much money do they really make? Anyway? These are the
Speaker 1: things we live and breathe over it on the Merits.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Laws weekly legal news podcast on the Merits looks
Speaker 1: into the biggest stories playing out in the legal industry
Speaker 1: right now, and we feature the finest journalists covering the
Speaker 1: biggest legal stories from across the Bloomberg Law newsroom. You
Speaker 1: can hear it wherever fine podcasts are found. Thanks for listening.