Speaker 1: All right, now that we know we're working with on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill more or less, what does that mean for
Speaker 1: environmental policy over the next two years and what does
Speaker 1: that mean for the rest of this year? On this episode,
Speaker 1: we talk about Congress, Energy, the environment, and of course
Speaker 1: Joe Mansion. Hello, and welcome back once again to Parts
Speaker 1: per Billion, the environmental podcast from Bloomberg Law. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: David Schultz. So today's episode is brought to you by
Speaker 1: the number one eighteen. As in, the Congress is about
Speaker 1: to begin at the beginning of next year, and after
Speaker 1: this month's midterm elections, we now have a pretty good
Speaker 1: idea of who's going to be serving in it. Democrats
Speaker 1: will retain control of the Senate with either the same
Speaker 1: majority they have now or maybe one extra seat to
Speaker 1: make a Republicans Meanwhile, we'll take over control of the House,
Speaker 1: but with a razor thin majority that maybe in the
Speaker 1: single digits. To go over what all this will mean
Speaker 1: for energy environmental policy, we'll be hearing from Kelly Lunney,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Government energy reporter who prowsed the halls of the
Speaker 1: House and Senate for us. In a bit you'll get
Speaker 1: into why the Democratic senator from West Virginia will be
Speaker 1: as powerful as ever in Congress. But first I asked
Speaker 1: her to tell me how the waning hours of the
Speaker 1: v will go. Yes, we've got the National Defense Authorization Act,
Speaker 1: which is a very very important piece of legislation that
Speaker 1: typically is bipartisan. Get it's one of the few things
Speaker 1: that Congress can agree on needs to get done every year.
Speaker 1: Um and it often carries a lot of other things
Speaker 1: in it, but it sets defense policy and it also
Speaker 1: authorizes defense appropriations, which is obviously very important for funding
Speaker 1: the military, pay raises for military members, etcetera. Yeah, there
Speaker 1: aren't a lot of lawmakers who want to be seen
Speaker 1: as you know, blocking a military funding bill, correct, And
Speaker 1: they do try to keep you know, like a lot
Speaker 1: of must pass legislation. Things get included in it that
Speaker 1: you know, aren't necessarily what everybody would like. But it's
Speaker 1: a little bit different from the Omnibus in this sense
Speaker 1: that they really do try to keep it focused on
Speaker 1: defense related UM and defense for adjacent issues UM. And
Speaker 1: it doesn't typically become the Christmas tree type of vehicle
Speaker 1: that that the Omnibus, the year end spending bill does. Well,
Speaker 1: let's get into that Christmas Tree, and you're talking about
Speaker 1: the you know, the annual or it's supposed to be
Speaker 1: annual funding bill that pays for the rest of the government. Um,
Speaker 1: it sounds like there could be some significant environmental or
Speaker 1: energy writers that get attached to that or will there
Speaker 1: be well, you know, I think you know, Congress always
Speaker 1: waits till the last minute to do this bill for
Speaker 1: many reasons. I think, um partly because the closer we
Speaker 1: get to the holidays, the more incentive people have to
Speaker 1: actually get something done so they can all leave and
Speaker 1: go home. As far as this year, you know, they'll
Speaker 1: they'll certainly looked to to try to fund all of
Speaker 1: the appropriations bills, including Interior Environment and the Energy and
Speaker 1: Water Bill, which is to the two bills that have
Speaker 1: the bulk of funding for energy and environment programs. So
Speaker 1: those will be in there at the levels that they've
Speaker 1: agreed to. They'll probably end up really going with the
Speaker 1: House versions just because of the Senate has not gotten
Speaker 1: as far um with their spending bills as the House has,
Speaker 1: and that's kind of been the case for the last
Speaker 1: couple of years. I want to specifically get into one
Speaker 1: item that did not get swept up into the Inflation
Speaker 1: Reduction Act from earlier this year, and that was permitting reform,
Speaker 1: which was a pet project of Senator Joe Manchin. You know,
Speaker 1: he wasn't able to get that across the finish line.
Speaker 1: Do you think he will be able to get that
Speaker 1: in the lame duck session. I think it's going to
Speaker 1: be a very, very difficult for him to do that
Speaker 1: because he has often said he wants to perform the
Speaker 1: federal permitting process. The permitting process by which energy projects
Speaker 1: are done, it is fairly bureaucratic, it can take a
Speaker 1: really long time. Sometimes things are you know, in litigation forever,
Speaker 1: and it can affect reasonable projects. And that's fossil fuel projects,
Speaker 1: that's renewable energy projects, that's infrastructure projects. It can be
Speaker 1: it can be difficult, But there's also a reason why
Speaker 1: we have these things in place so that um environmental
Speaker 1: reviews are done and people are able to have input
Speaker 1: into what these projects look like and ensure that they
Speaker 1: don't harm you know, communities, particularly communities of color, who
Speaker 1: are already overburdened with pollution, that they don't negatively affect habitat,
Speaker 1: wildlife things like that. So there's a reason why we
Speaker 1: have this, but I think both you know, Democrats and
Speaker 1: Republicans to some degree agree that there needs to be
Speaker 1: some overhauling of how it works currently. Centator Mansion was
Speaker 1: interested in doing it because there is a big project
Speaker 1: in his state called the Mountain Valley Pipeline that has
Speaker 1: been on the books for almost ten years now. It's
Speaker 1: been delayed numerous times because of this permitting process. There's
Speaker 1: been environmental reviews, there's been litigation, and he really wants
Speaker 1: to get it done because he believes that it will
Speaker 1: help lower energy prices. Um it's a natural gas pipeline
Speaker 1: that was really his his impetus for trying to do
Speaker 1: this now, and he has leverage because he's Joe Manchon,
Speaker 1: he's the crucial fiftie vote in the Senate. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's actually interesting because I would have thought that
Speaker 1: he would have lost his leverage because the Inflation Reduction
Speaker 1: Actor already passed. Democrats and the Biden administration got most
Speaker 1: of what they wanted, But actually your story recently on
Speaker 1: this show, No, he still has a ton of leverage because,
Speaker 1: as we now know, Democrats retained the Senate, which means
Speaker 1: Joe Manchon is still going to be the chairman of
Speaker 1: the Energy Committee, which is a very powerful position. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he still has a lot of leverage, He still has
Speaker 1: a lot of influence because of that position. He also,
Speaker 1: you know, extracted commitments from Senator Schumer, who has indicated
Speaker 1: every time he's been asked about it that he intends
Speaker 1: to honor that and to try to get federal permitting
Speaker 1: reform um that Mansion supports across the board. The White
Speaker 1: House has indicated support for it too. So there, there's
Speaker 1: he still got that to count on. The other thing
Speaker 1: that could help him, maybe not this year, but perhaps
Speaker 1: next year, is that with you know, Republicans taking charge
Speaker 1: of the House, you know he could work with them
Speaker 1: on federal permitting. Now, it's going to look a lot
Speaker 1: different than what he than what he proposed originally, and
Speaker 1: he's still going to have a hard time attracting support
Speaker 1: from both sides of the aisle, but Republicans have and
Speaker 1: some some Republican members that I have talked to who
Speaker 1: have jurisdiction over an interest in federal permitting have expressed
Speaker 1: a willingness to work with him on this. Something could happen.
Speaker 1: There are other Democrats to not necessarily in the progressive wing,
Speaker 1: but other Democrats who would really like to see some
Speaker 1: kind of overhaul to the permitting process. Yeah, it blocks
Speaker 1: projects in red states and blue states. Correct, So there
Speaker 1: is some some um. There are some Democrats that I
Speaker 1: want to have this conversation, want to get something done.
Speaker 1: I think as far as the Lame Duck is concerned,
Speaker 1: it's we don't have much time at all left. People
Speaker 1: I have talked to on the Hill don't have much
Speaker 1: UM appetite for putting something like this in the n
Speaker 1: d A because they don't want to derail the NDA,
Speaker 1: which again is a very important piece of legislation. So
Speaker 1: I think it could crop up again. You know, we
Speaker 1: could have um, some flurry of activity where maybe maybe
Speaker 1: it gets dropped into this or that. But I think
Speaker 1: we're just the clock is running out, and um, you know,
Speaker 1: we'll see what happens next year. I don't think it's
Speaker 1: it's dead, but I don't think it's gonna go anywhere
Speaker 1: this year. Staying with um mansion and staying with the
Speaker 1: end of here, let's talk about nominations, and specifically I
Speaker 1: want to talk about one nomination in particular, Richard Glick,
Speaker 1: who the Biden Administration nominated to serve on FIRK, which
Speaker 1: is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Senator Mansion has said
Speaker 1: he does not want to hold a hearing on this domination.
Speaker 1: Hasn't given a lot of reasons why. But uh, it
Speaker 1: seems like now that Mansion is going to continue on
Speaker 1: as the chairman of this committee, is this nomination toast Like,
Speaker 1: is he going to have to you know, withdraw the
Speaker 1: nomination pretty much? Yeah? Wow, Okay, I think it might
Speaker 1: be a rap for Richard Glick um because you know,
Speaker 1: he's getting to the end of the year. He's not
Speaker 1: going to get a hearing this year. Biden could obviously
Speaker 1: renominate him next year and the process kind of starts
Speaker 1: over again. But that doesn't mean that Mansion is going
Speaker 1: to change his mind um, and he's still in charge
Speaker 1: of the committee that has to advance the nomination to
Speaker 1: the floor. So I think that glick is probably getting
Speaker 1: caught up in the larger politics around and energy. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I was gonna ask, do we have a sense of
Speaker 1: why Mansion opposed opposes him. I've heard a few things,
Speaker 1: and my my colleague Daniel Moore at Bloomberg Law has
Speaker 1: done some excellent reporting on this topic. A few weeks ago,
Speaker 1: Biden gave a speech. He talked about energy, and there
Speaker 1: was some comments that he made essentially saying, we're gonna
Speaker 1: shut down you know, coal plants. We're gonna you know,
Speaker 1: it was it was a bit toned off and it's
Speaker 1: not the kind of thing that Joe Manson likes to hear.
Speaker 1: It made him angry, and Mansion, you know, shot off
Speaker 1: statement after those remarks, basically saying that they were you know,
Speaker 1: that was a terrible thing to say and it's not
Speaker 1: true in etcetera, etcetera. So you know, Biden kind of
Speaker 1: needlessly angered Mansion over that. And this is also around
Speaker 1: the time where reporters have been asking, Okay, when are
Speaker 1: you going to have the Glick nomination? Hearing you know,
Speaker 1: his time is running out, and I think so, I
Speaker 1: think Glick got caught up in the sort of crossfire.
Speaker 1: But you know, and Glick is a former Energy Natural
Speaker 1: Resources staffer, He's worked on that committee. He knows Mansion.
Speaker 1: Mansion knows him. Um And as I mentioned earlier, you know,
Speaker 1: my colleague Daniel More wrote a story I believe yesterday
Speaker 1: that mentioned this issue, and he had talked to Glick
Speaker 1: yesterday at the Firk meeting, and Glick said that Mansion
Speaker 1: called him and and you know, talked to him about
Speaker 1: it before he said that he wasn't going to do
Speaker 1: the hearing. You know, I think it's pretty clear that
Speaker 1: Mansion is navigating a very tricky path on these issues,
Speaker 1: on energy and environment issues. Um, given the state he's from.
Speaker 1: Oh and by the way, Senator Mansion is up for
Speaker 1: re election in two years. Yes, yes, uh, let's cross
Speaker 1: the rotunda and head on over to the House. That
Speaker 1: we don't know what the majority will be like in
Speaker 1: the House. We know Republicans will be in control, but
Speaker 1: we don't know the size. We do know that it's
Speaker 1: going to be very, very very small, So Republicans are
Speaker 1: going to have trouble I think probably passing anything, let
Speaker 1: alone passing something and then getting the Senate to pass
Speaker 1: it and Senate to the President's desk. However, they will
Speaker 1: have the ability to do investigations into the Biden environmental agenda.
Speaker 1: What do you expect those to look like? What do
Speaker 1: you think that Republicans in the House will target in
Speaker 1: terms of their investigations. I think that they're going to
Speaker 1: look at the administration's probably starting out the administration's policies
Speaker 1: on gas prices and how much of a role that
Speaker 1: they've played in inflation, and how the administration's energy policy
Speaker 1: has affected the country's ability to be energy independent and
Speaker 1: keep prices affordable and service reliable for for the country.
Speaker 1: I think that's going to be a key area that
Speaker 1: they look at. I think they're also going to UM
Speaker 1: be interested in how the administration pursues UM domestic oil
Speaker 1: and gas drilling on federal lands. UM. That's been a
Speaker 1: sticking point UM for a while. You know, there was
Speaker 1: the executive action that Biden took putting a temporary moratorium
Speaker 1: on that that has been litigated. Now we're essentially at
Speaker 1: a point where the administration can't keep delaying and slow
Speaker 1: walking UM those types of LEAs sales. So I think
Speaker 1: you're going to see Republicans push them on on being
Speaker 1: more proactive on holding oil and gas LEA sales on
Speaker 1: shore and offshore on federal lands UM. And I think
Speaker 1: you're going to see a lot more appearances by Cabinet
Speaker 1: secretaries like Deb Hall and an Interior UM, Michael Reagan
Speaker 1: a d p A, and Jennifer Granthome and Energy on
Speaker 1: the Hill asking about all of those things. I think
Speaker 1: d Oe in particular, d O, we got a lot
Speaker 1: of money in the Infrastructure Law. They also got a
Speaker 1: decent amount of money in the um Inflation Reduction Act.
Speaker 1: So they're in a position where they're deciding how they're
Speaker 1: going to disperse that money. You're going to see Republicans
Speaker 1: do a lot of oversight on how that money is spent,
Speaker 1: where it goes, what kind of projects it goes to. Okay,
Speaker 1: and finally, really quickly, UM, our colleague Ari Nader wrote
Speaker 1: a story recently about how the president may use the
Speaker 1: administrative rulemaking process to get done what he can't get
Speaker 1: done in the next two years through Congress. He certainly
Speaker 1: wouldn't be the first president to try to do this
Speaker 1: when Congress doesn't give him what he wants. UM, what
Speaker 1: do you think about that? Do you think that that
Speaker 1: is an avenue that the president will pursue, and if so,
Speaker 1: do you think it will be accessible? I think it's
Speaker 1: definitely an avenue he'll pursue, and it's an avenue that's
Speaker 1: open to him. Um. And this is this is the
Speaker 1: time that presidents used that avenue to not necessarily successfully,
Speaker 1: but they try to use it more often at this
Speaker 1: period of time, when they've got a divided Congress there
Speaker 1: in their last two years of their administration, they really
Speaker 1: want to get things across the board. The issue with
Speaker 1: rulemaking and other executive executive actions like executive orders, proclamations,
Speaker 1: things like that, you can do those things, but they're
Speaker 1: not durable, so they can always get overturned, reversed, thrown
Speaker 1: out executive actions, especially executive actions for sure. But but
Speaker 1: rules too, you know, there's the Congressional Review Act and
Speaker 1: that you know, Congress can can undo regulations in a
Speaker 1: certain period of time, and you know there's always litigation
Speaker 1: that comes along with rules too. So I mean, I
Speaker 1: think it's certainly an avenue, it's not it's not necessarily
Speaker 1: I think one that could yield a lot of significant action, though,
Speaker 1: I mean he may be able to do some stuff
Speaker 1: tinkering here and there, maybe on like social cost of carbon,
Speaker 1: maybe on methane, which you're seeing right now happen um
Speaker 1: with the e p A and those are. You know,
Speaker 1: it's it's not nothing, but it's not the big sweeping,
Speaker 1: transformative um investment that you that you know, we've seen
Speaker 1: with infrastructure, the Infrastructure law with the inflation Reduction Acts.
Speaker 1: So there's only so much you can do with the
Speaker 1: rule making process. All right. Well that was Kelly Lenny
Speaker 1: talking about the end of one seventeen and the beginning
Speaker 1: of one eighteen. Thank you Kelly so much for for chatting.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate it. Yeah, thanks for having me. And
Speaker 1: that's it for today's episode of Parts Rebellion. If you
Speaker 1: want more environmental news, check us out on Twitter. We
Speaker 1: used to handle at environment just that at Environment, and
Speaker 1: I of course I'm at David B. Shorts. Today's episode
Speaker 1: of Parts Billion was produced by myself, David Jolts. Parts
Speaker 1: of Billion was created by Jessica Coombs and Rachel Dagle
Speaker 1: and is edited by Zach Sherwood and Jack McCutcheon. Our
Speaker 1: executive producer is Josh Block. Thanks everyone for listening and
Speaker 1: Happy Thanksgiving. An individual's race should not be used to
Speaker 1: help him or harm him in his life's endeavors. A
Speaker 1: pair of lawsuits has made its way to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: and the decision could dramatically change just who gets into
Speaker 1: which college. Bloom is effectively using the Asian community as pawns.
Speaker 1: Every lawsuit needs a villain to mask an anti black
Speaker 1: and anti Latino agenda? Does this demoralize me? No, it
Speaker 1: doesn't demoralize me. This season on Uncommon Law will explore
Speaker 1: the arguments and the people driving this latest battle over
Speaker 1: affirmative action. Can the Constitution be used to remedy society's ills?
Speaker 1: I'm the only person in class, must raise my hand
Speaker 1: and say, okay, well, actually, here's how this affects people
Speaker 1: that look like me. Does the Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection
Speaker 1: Clause prohibit all discrimination based on race? You let somebody
Speaker 1: in because of their race, you're keeping somebody else out
Speaker 1: because of their race. There might have been two or
Speaker 1: three Latinos, including me, and so somehow that's too much.
Speaker 1: Somehow that goes too far. It's hard not to take
Speaker 1: that very personally. Coming October, part one of a three
Speaker 1: part series on affirmative action. What's being decided is whether
Speaker 1: black and brown people are going to be excluded in
Speaker 1: significant numbers only An uncommon Law from Bloomberg Industry Group