The Energy Department is facing resistance from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle for considering killing several energy projects funded by the Biden administration.
The pressure from the lawmakers comes as Energy Secretary Chris Wright weighs gutting the clean energy spending that President Donald Trump has blasted as the “green new scam.” But a growing chorus of voices contends the funding is critical for new technologies like hydrogen production and carbon capture — and toward solving the “national energy emergency” that Trump has declared.
Projects at risk of losing funding have gotten backing from Trump’s allies in the oil and gas sector, as well as the lawmakers whose districts would benefit from the investments. And Democrats and some industry groups warn that canceling them could violate the laws that authorized the spending.
POLITICO previously reported that DOE is drafting a hit list of energy projects to submit to the White House for potential cuts as soon as this week. A draft version of that list that circulated within the departmentsuggested cutting four hydrogen production hubs located mostly in Democratic-leaning states while maintaining funding for three hubs spread across mostly red states.
That draft list — along with at least two others that suggest DOE may pull funding for various transmission projects and a pair of projects that would suck carbon dioxide from the air — has drawn bipartisan concern as it rocketed around Capitol Hill this week. POLITICO is not publishing the lists under an agreement with the people who shared them.
“Somebody’s DOGE victory is somebody else’s sacred cow,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), referring to the controversial effort led by Elon Musk to shrink the federal government. “That’s sort of what we’re running up against with this broad approach.”
It’s not clear if the carbon capture or transmission projects will be on the list that Wright is expected to submit to the White House. People familiar with the Energy Department’s efforts have cautioned that the lists circling the Hill are subject to changes.
A DOE spokesperson reiterated on Thursday that a department-wide review “to ensure activities follow the law and align with the Trump administration’s priorities” was ongoing.
Cramer highlighted the importance of maintaining support for carbon management research at the University of North Dakota.
“Without it, you could very well lose an industry, which would be counter to Donald Trump’s energy dominance, energy independence platform,” Cramer said. He expressed optimism that the suggested broad cuts will ultimately be pared back.
The Trump DOE has shown some willingness to date to heed GOP concerns on stalled projects.
Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), whose district would be home to the Pacific Northwest hydrogen hub that was among those suggested for elimination, said he is making the case to DOE.
“[The hub is] part of an all-of-the-above energy portfolio that has a future worth exploring,” Newhouse said. Sited across Washington, Oregon and Montana, the hub could receive $1 billion in federal funding and use renewable energy to produce hydrogen for heavy-duty trucking, agriculture and port operations.
Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.) has also reached out to the administration about the possibility that the Midwest regional hydrogen hub could be targeted, his spokesperson said.
Two direct air capture hubs for carbon dioxide in Texas and Louisiana were also on a draft hit list obtained by POLITICO that circulated among Hill offices this week.
That includes the South Texas Direct Air Capture Hub, which Occidental Petroleum has heavily promoted and which the Biden Energy Department promised to finance with up to $500 million.
Occidental CEO Vicki Hollub told a crowd of executives earlier this month in Houston that “there’s going to be a need for this in the Permian in a big way for sure,” referring to the West Texas region that is the largest oil-producing area in the United States.
The project was expected to start stripping 500,000 metric tons of CO2 a year from the atmosphere initially before ramping up to 30 million tons.
An Occidental spokesperson did not respond to questions.
Louisiana Economic Development Secretary Susan Bonnett Bourgeois asked the state’s congressional delegation to contact the Energy Department to voice support of the Project Cypress air capture project.
The project, which aims to collect 1 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, has so far received $50 million from the DOE out of $600 million for which it is eligible.
“I urge you to contact DOE Secretary Chris Wright and ask him to take every necessary step to advance this critically needed federal grant,” Bourgeois wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO.
One Republican lawmaker’s office said it had fielded comments from “a lot of carbon capture companies that are worried about their funding.”
In a statement, the Carbon Capture Coalition, an organization that includes companies, unions and environmental groups, said preserving the grant funding from the bipartisan infrastructure law and the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture would be critical to its growth.
“These proposals are now law. Pulling back on these programs would be catastrophic to the broader deployment of these technologies in the next decade,” the coalition said.
Another list circulating on the Hill obtained by POLITICO weighs cuts to the Power Up New England project — an energy storage and transmission project that was awarded $389 million by DOE — along with 20 different transmission siting and economic development grants.
Democratic lawmakers argued that cutting funding for the hubs and other energy projects would be hypocritical to Republicans’ stated goal to increase U.S. energy output — and would be another example of the Trump administration’s legally dubious effort to impound congressionally appropriated money.
“It’s absolutely bizarre if they are going to undermine hydrogen, but especially because that comes from natural gas,” said Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), noting it could hurt his state’s fracking industry.
“All you’re doing is hurting Pennsylvanians, but in these cases, you’re actually hurting your own voters,” he added.
The draft list seen by POLITICO called for cutting the Mid-Atlantic hub planned for southeastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware that would use renewable and nuclear energy, while maintaining the Appalachian hub in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia that would rely on natural gas.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, a moderate Pennsylvania Democrat, urged the administration to support hydrogen and “every possible technology” to boost power output.
“Scaling back now and politicizing the rollout of this program will stifle progress, cost thousands of jobs, limit economic growth, and weaken our energy security,” Houlahan said in a statement.
Democrats in particular took issue with DOE eyeing cuts mostly in Democrat-led states — including the ARCHES hub in California — while sparing Republican-led ones.
“Cancelling hydrogen hub projects out of political spite has real consequences: it will kill jobs, harm our economy, and diminish our domestic energy production,” said Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), in a statement. “As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I’m keeping track of projects that may be impacted and I’m fighting any attempted illegal money grabs.”
It’s not immediately clear how the Trump administration would seek to cut programs it deems outside of alignment with its priorities. Trump has asserted he has the authority to suspend congressionally approved spending that he considers wasteful, in potential violation of existing law. The prospect of nixing grants already under contract would also likely face legal challenges.
But some Republicans on the Hill have expressed a willingness to formally rescind funding via legislation, should the administration send cuts their way.
Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) noted that a majority of the funding from clean energy programs under the Biden administration flowed to red states, so focusing cuts on blue states was irrational. “If they go back on that and come around and make politics out of it, shame on them,” he said.
Some Republicans, however, urged the Energy Department to make cuts despite the potential economic hit to their states and districts, noting that many of the projects may be untenable even with the federal support.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said he supports narrowing grant funding to “projects that are committed and are still viable.”
The Heartland hydrogen hub, which includes North Dakota and was excluded from the list of potential cuts, has lost several of its member companies.
“Some of those projects just have not panned out,” Hoeven said. “So I think you’ll see in a number of cases that that funding does end up getting pulled back.”
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), who chairs the environment subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said he supports DOE funding research into all forms of energy, but there is a “huge group” of non-research grants that need to be cut to get federal spending under control.
And Griffith argued it’s more important for the Trump administration to cut now and then look at restoring efforts that merit federal support.
“Some of those programs that I might like might get cut, but we can bring them back,” he said. “It’s disruptive to the lives of the scientists and the workers at the universities, and I understand that. But the wheels are going to come off of our economic vehicle if we don’t start making some significant changes in the way we spend money.”
from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/25X3sAj
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment