When it comes to slashing carbon pollution from the single largest source in the country — the transportation sector — the fight to watch is over the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to limit emissions from medium and heavy-duty trucks.
Heavy-duty trucks make up less than 10 percent of the nation’s vehicle fleet. But they spew a disproportionate amount of toxic pollutants in predominantly overburdened communities.
Yet after the Supreme Court blurred the lines of EPA’s authority last week, reining in truck emissions could be an even bigger haul than expected.
A Chicago-based group that represents the makers of internal combustion engines has complained that EPA’s proposal is technologically infeasible and could in essence force the industry to prematurely shift to electric trucks.
The group, the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association, has already sued California over the state’s new emissions standard, which is tougher than the federal proposal.
An industry divided
But not all truck and engine makers are fully on board with that fight. They have collectively pumped billions of dollars into efforts needed to meet stricter emissions standards. And to them, the association’s opposition to toughened rules has a downside: regulatory uncertainty, endless litigation and the inevitability of tougher emissions standards over time.
The latest effort to sue California, a national trendsetter on auto emissions, divided the association’s members. The engine maker Cummins recently joined Ford and General Motors in denouncing the lawsuit.
The Supreme Court decision last week in West Virginia v. EPA limiting the Biden administration’s authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants has cast a shadow over the future of other climate regulations like the clean truck proposal.
The ruling has put a renewed focus on state-led efforts to cut power plant emissions — including in a number of Republican-led states. But states have limited options when it comes to curbing transportation pollution, which falls almost entirely under federal jurisdiction.
California is the only state allowed to set emissions limits stronger than federal standards, which other states can then adopt. Its efforts face yet another source of uncertainty, though: EPA is considering slow-walking California’s rule to give industry more time to prepare.
The high court’s use of the “major questions” doctrine, which limits federal agencies’ ability to regulate important economic or political matters without clear direction from Congress, has created uncertainty for regulators. The doctrine could be used to squash a host of climate rules.
Conservative power brokers buoyed by the court’s decision wasted no time plotting their next move. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who spearheaded the challenge against EPA, said he’s taking a close look at a Securities and Exchange Commission proposal requiring publicly traded companies to disclose their climate pollution.
Potentially also on the chopping block is a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rule that would allow the agency to reject a natural gas pipeline based on its emissions.
It’s Wednesday — thank you for tuning into POLITICO’s Power Switch. I’m your host, Arianna Skibell. Power Switch is brought to you by the journalists behind E&E News and POLITICO Energy. Send your tips, comments, questions to [email protected]
Wind storms traveling faster than 95 mph swept through five states yesterday, turning the sky green. One of the hardest hit was South Dakota.
The death of coal
The historic ruling at the Supreme Court gave coal industry interests a major victory by limiting EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide, but the fuel’s prospects remain bleak, writes Benjamin Storrow.
“When you take a serious look, the fundamentals haven’t changed. In general, this is an industry on a downward trend,” said Xizhou Zhou, an analyst who tracks the power sector at S&P Global Commodity Insights. Here’s the full story.
For example, Colorado utilities are planning a “very rapid transition” away from coal-fired generation, ending the burning of coal earlier than expected, writes Jason Plautz. Read more here.
Inch by inch
Senate Democrats sent an agreement on drug pricing to the parliamentarian for review, an important step forward in talks on their party-line budget reconciliation package, writes Nick Sobczyk.
But energy and climate provisions that have been a cornerstone of the budget reconciliation effort remain in flux, with details expected to trickle out over the coming weeks. Here’s the story.
Green gas labels
EU lawmakers voted to allow nuclear and natural gas-fired power plants to be marketed as sustainable investments on financial markets, writes America Hernandez.
Under the new laws, gas-fired plants will be recognized as a transitional energy source as long as they replace a coal plant. Here’s the story.
The last oil supper: Climate protesters in England glued themselves to a copy of Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” at a gallery in London, demanding an end to oil production and consumption.
Jocks jockey for the planet: Athletes are taking climate action as increasingly hot temperatures and severe droughts are disrupting a range of sports to skiing, river surfing, cycling and trail running.
Today in the POLITICO Energy podcast: Ben Lefebvre explains how oil companies and climate activists have new fodder for disagreement with the release of the Biden administration’s proposed offshore oil and gas leasing plan.
The science, policy and politics driving the energy transition can feel miles away. But we’re all affected on an individual and communal level — from hotter days and higher gas prices to home insurance rates and food supply.
Want to know more? Send me your questions with “Question Corner” in the subject line.
A showcase of some of our best subscriber content.
The Department of Energy is opening up funding to states and tribes to strengthen their power grids against extreme weather events.
The group that won a climate lawsuit against Shell reviewed the records of nearly 30 companies and warned that they are “on a collision course with our climate.”
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has led to fears of future natural gas supply disruptions that will likely reduce consumption and restrain growth for the next three years.
That’s it for today, folks! Thanks for reading.