The major climate rule that the Obama administration is unveiling Monday is a political gamble for the president’s party — but some Democrats see the risk as manageable, and the cause more than worth it.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s rule, meant to cut greenhouse gas pollution from thousands of existing power plants, poses obvious dangers in November for Democrats in coal country and other energy-rich states, as well as regions where many voters dislike federal intrusion. It also poses unknown risks in 2016, when states will have to seek EPA approval for their plans to comply with the rule. But the regulation is also President Barack Obama’s best hope for a legacy on climate change, and it offers the U.S. a chance to take a leading role in the global response to the problem.
Continue Reading
Its lasting political impact may come down to how effectively EPA carries it out — if, for example, the agency can avoid the kind of troubled rollout that plagued Obamacare’s debut.
“Sure, it’ll have some impact in certain regions,” said former Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, which houses 6 percent of the nation’s coal reserves and was the second-largest oil-producing state last year. “The question that is going be answered, and which is going to make people nervous, is exactly how EPA is going to make compliance decisions.”
But he and other Democrats, to varying degrees, think the risks are overstated.
“I don’t buy these doomsday scenarios some are trying to paint for Democrats,” said Heather Zichal, who until last year was Obama’s top energy and climate adviser. “I can’t find a single race where I think this proposal going forward is going to mean that the Democrat doesn’t get elected.”
(Also on POLITICO: Obama to seek 30 percent cuts in carbon pollution)
In the 2014 races with the rule’s most obvious political implications, Democrats like West Virginia Rep. Nick Rahall and Kentucky Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes have wasted no time in denouncing the regulation. Others, like Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Mary Landrieu (D-La.), routinely vote for legislation attacking EPA rules and support other energy-friendly causes, like the Keystone XL pipeline.
The big unknown: Will that insulate them from GOP attempts to tie them to Obama’s so-called war on coal?
On the other hand, EPA supporters think the rule could help Democrats in some close races in which climate change is becoming a more potent issue, such as Michigan’s Senate contest. They may get a boost from the months-long publicity barrage that environmentalists plan to launch supporting the rule.
(PHOTOS: Climate skeptics in Congress)
And some candidates may be able to seek middle ground. For instance, Dorgan said Democrats can pair the public’s overall belief that climate change is a problem with the message that “we do need to produce energy and use all of our fuel sources in a smart way, and we can all work together to make that happen.”
Governors’ reactions will also be important, given the importance of the state compliance plans, said Paul Bledsoe, a Clinton-era climate aide. “Right now, sadly, it looks like a fairly partisan landscape,” he said.
(PHOTOS: Keystone XL activists march in D.C.)
The reaction from electric power companies could also make a difference politically, including those that have already made significant investments in nuclear, natural gas and renewable energy, which could go a long way to helping states comply.
“Is a state governor going to step out there and say, ‘We can’t do this,’ if a utility says, ‘We can get it done?’” Zichal asked.
Here’s a breakdown of where EPA’s rule could make a difference:
1. “War — on coal” races
Kentucky Senate: It would be hard to be more anti-EPA than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who routinely gives speeches attacking Obama’s climate agenda as a “war on jobs.” But Grimes is trying: She used her May 20 primary victory speech to blame both Obama’s regulations and McConnell for the decline of the state’s coal jobs.
McConnell responded in his own victory speech that Grimes is “Barack Obama’s candidate” and sought to tie her to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose “coal makes us sick” remark continues to be a durable McConnell talking point. And the most recent polling suggests McConnell received a slight post-primary boost.
Even in private fundraisers with environmentalists and other liberal donors, Grimes has stayed on message that she is a “pro-coal Kentuckian.” But McConnell will continue to pummel her on the issue.
“It’s the biggest single problem that she has right now,” said Al Cross, a columnist and former political reporter for the Louisville Courier-Journal who teaches at the University of Kentucky. But Grimes is still defining herself with voters and can “talk about coal in ways where you can find some common ground … not so much to persuade people but to stanch the losses,” he said.
One indication of how concerned Kentucky lawmakers of both parties are about the climate rule: The Legislature unanimously passed a law this year requiring the state to limit electricity cost hikes and discourage switching away from coal when complying with the EPA rules. Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear signed it in April.
— West Virginia’s 3rd District: Rahall has likewise tried to distance himself from the EPA rule, saying in a floor speech Thursday that “the only real question is where on a scale from devastating to a death blow the new rule will fall.” He promised to “look at any and all options to block this proposed rule from being finalized.”
But he’s still taking a bashing from the National Republican Congressional Committee and conservative groups tied to brothers Charles and David Koch, which have focused on Rahall’s support for past budget proposals that included a carbon tax or cap-and-trade policy.
Rahall has long said he opposes a carbon tax, and he has regularly voted for pro-coal legislation in the Republican-led House. Those included a bill he co-sponsored, which the House passed in March, that would block a separate EPA climate rule for future power plants.
After watching his victory margin shrink to 12 points and then 8 points in his past two reelections, Rahall is one of the NRCC’s top seven Democratic targets this year and faces probably the toughest fight of his three-decade-long House tenure. He’s the only member from coal country on NRCC’s list of Democratic targets, all of whom represent districts that voted for Republicans in the last three presidential elections.
— Montana, Virginia and West Virginia Senate: It’s unclear whether the races to fill these Democratic-held coal-state seats are going to be close. Republicans running for open seats are favored in Montana and West Virginia, while Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) has so far avoided being tarred with the “war — on coal” label. Warner was one of seven Senate Democrats who wrote to Obama asking him to reconsider his climate proposal for future power plants.
The Virginia race hasn’t drawn any interest from climate activist billionaire Tom Steyer and the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund, two big green forces that helped Democrat Terry McAuliffe defeat Republican Ken Cuccinelli in last year’s Virginia gubernatorial election.
Source: Top Stories - Google News - http://ift.tt/1n2g1kg
No comments:
Post a Comment