Climate notes on the Democratic platform. Here are my notes. Emily Atkin Jul 23 2020 Issue 910
Photo by Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images
The Democratic Party’s formal governing body, the Democratic National Committee, released a draft of its 2020 policy platform on Wednesday. The document is intended to represent Democrats’ official policy priorities for the next four years.
Clocking in at a whopping 80 pages, the draft document shows that “progressives are continuing to make step-by-step progress in pushing Biden and the party left,” Politico reported yesterday. However, Politico added, the document also “shows the limited sway of the left, with the paper largely reflecting Biden’s centrist vision for the country.”
This interpretation rings true in the draft platform’s climate section. On the one hand, it’s more extensive than it’s ever been. “Whereas DNC’s 2012 platform included just a half a page on climate policy and the 2016 platform grew a bit to three pages, the 2020 draft devotes four pages to climate policy proposals, including some notable bright spots,” Earther’s Dharna Noor reports. Those “bright spots” include an incorporation of Joe Biden’s new climate policy, which pledges to fully decarbonize the power sector by 2035 and direct 40 percent of the economic benefits from clean energy investments toward disadvantaged communities.
At the same time, some climate language contained in the Democrats’ 2020 draft platform actually appears less aggressive than the climate language contained in the 2016 platform—at least as it pertains to the most important subject in climate policy: fossil fuels. Unlike the 2016 platform, the 2020 draft does not pledge to stop massive government subsidies and tax breaks to fossil fuel companies. Nor does it pledge to start charging them for their pollution via a carbon tax or price on carbon.
Additionally, though the draft platform states plainly that “As Democrats, we believe the scientists: the window for unprecedented and necessary action is closing, and closing fast,” it doesn’t mention specifically what it believes that window is. That’s important, as there are multiple scientific “windows” for action, depending on how much climate damage politicians are trying to prevent. Without a specific goal—1.5 degrees Celsius? 2 degrees Celsius? 4 degrees Celsius?—it’s unclear what type of future Democrats are trying to secure.
Importantly, this is not the final version of the Democratic platform. The DNC’s entire platform committee is set to consider the draft on Monday. People will offer amendments, and they’ll get voted on. It’s possible some of this could change.
In the meantime, here are a few notes I made about the draft. Who knows: maybe someone important at the DNC will read them and decide they are worth talking about on Monday! (What up, Tom. I see you).
Related: Why the Democratic platform is important for climate
A smattering of climate-related observations about the DNC’s draft 2020 platform
—The preamble, meant to convey the Democratic Party’s priorities, doesn’t mention climate change until the 15th paragraph. There are only 18 paragraphs in the draft preamble, and the climate crisis isn’t mentioned until almost the very end. To me, this indicates that party leaders still consider the climate crisis to be a far-off threat, rather than the immediate public health emergency that doctors, nurses, and scientists say it is.
—The paragraph summarizing the “challenges before us” also does not mention the climate crisis. The third paragraph of the preamble says that “Americans are facing “the worst public health crisis in a century, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the worst period of global upheaval in a generation, the intolerable racial injustice that still stains the fabric of our nation.” Pandemic, money, war, racism. Do Democrats realize climate change is making all those things worse?
—The draft platform doesn’t contain the phrase “1.5 Degrees.” The document does cite the Paris Agreement, which aims to keep the world from warming more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. But the actual document doesn’t specify that this is the goal, which is important, because 1.5 degrees of warming is widely considered the limit to preserve a safe climate.
—The draft platform only mentions the word “fossil fuels” once, and only to say they should clean up physical pollution. Specifically, the platform draft says Democrats “will hold fossil fuel companies accountable for cleaning up abandoned mine lands, oil and gas wells, and industrial sites, so these facilities no longer pollute local environments and can be safely repurposed to support new economic activity, including in the heart of coal country.”
—The draft platform does not say Democrats will hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate change. Nearly every Democratic presidential candidate include Biden said they would seek some sort of accountability from fossil fuel companies for their outsized role in causing the climate crisis—whether it be financial accountability, criminal accountability, or both. Still, the platform doesn’t mention accountability measures for fossil fuel companies.
—The 2016 platform did mention accountability. In fact, it mentioned “fossil fuels” four times, and acknowledged the need to ramp down production. The Democrats’ 2016 platform pledged to:
- “Eliminate special tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel companies as well as defending and extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy.”
- “Request the Department of Justice … investigate allegations of corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies accused of misleading shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change.”
- “Reform fossil fuel leasing on public lands. We will phase down extraction of fossil fuels from our public lands, starting with the most polluting sources, while making our public lands and waters engines of the clean energy economy and creating jobs across the country.”
—The 2016 platform included a carbon price. The 2020 platform doesn’t. Specifically, the 2016 platform said “Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy and help meet our climate goals.” The 2020 platform doesn’t say that, and that will likely make some progressives who oppose carbon pricing happy to see.
—The 2020 platform is “inclusive” of nuclear power. Those same climate progressives who oppose carbon pricing generally aren’t supportive of nuclear, though, so they won’t be happy to see this part of the 2020 platform draft, which says that “our technology-neutral approach is inclusive of all zero-carbon technologies, including hydroelectric power, geothermal, existing and advanced nuclear, and carbon capture and storage.”
Why doesn’t the Democratic platform have aggressive language against fossil fuel companies?
It’s hard to say, but I suspect it has something to do with the political power of the fossil fuel industry. See this Twitter thread I did last week:
The question is: Are Democratic Party leaders actually beholden to the fossil fuel industry’s power? Are they really unwilling to reduce fossil fuel production to solve the climate crisis?
Or are Democrats just trying to stave off the industry’s political wrath before the election?
Petition seeks climate-related amendments to the platform
R.L. Miller, the new climate-focused DNC member who told DNC Chairman Tom Perez to “fuck off” in an interview with HEATED back in May, also has several observations and concerns about the Democrats’ 2020 draft platform from a climate perspective.
Her organization, Climate Hawks Vote, is circulating a petition to “strengthen the DNC platform for our planet.” You can read about her concerns there. If you agree, you could sign the petition. If you don’t, you could not.
Either way, the DNC platform committee will consider the draft on Monday—and I’ll consider keeping you updated about it.
OK, that’s all for today—thanks for reading HEATED!
For utilities, all things take a back seat to profit, and their power can be bad for customers and the climate
Dan Gearino Climate Home News JUL 26, 2020
COLUMBUS, Ohio—Among other things, the king-size bribery scandals in Illinois and Ohio dominating the headlines lately are a vivid illustration of how utilities routinely exert financial and political power to shield themselves from the risks of doing business, often at the expense of consumers.
The dynamic is so pervasive that some analysts and advocates say they thought they had lost the ability to be shocked by it—until the revelations of the last 10 days.
“I was gobsmacked,” said Ned Hill, an Ohio State University economist who had testified against the legislation now at the center of the bribery probe. The behavior described in legal documents, he said, looks “like the outtakes from The Godfather.”
Hill and other close observers of the legislative process say utilities have too much political power and operate in a campaign finance system that makes it too easy for them to get what they want, and that often leads to unfair competition.
Sign up for Inside Clean Energy
Inside the future of energy.I agree to InsideClimate News’ Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
On July 17, federal prosecutors in Illinois announced that the utility Commonwealth Edison had allegedly provided jobs and favors to people associated with the Illinois House speaker, in exchange for legislation that included a bailout of nuclear power plants. Four days later, federal prosecutors in Ohio made a more startling announcement in an unrelated but similar case, charging the Ohio House speaker, Republican Larry Householder, and four other people, with taking more than $60 million in bribes from the utility FirstEnergy in exchange for passing a nuclear bailout.
The utilities’ unrestrained influence also has implications for climate change and the environment, although those factors differ widely in the Illinois and Ohio cases because of differences in the bills passed in each state. But environmental advocates say both the Illinois and Ohio examples are alarming because they show a system in which all concerns take a back seat to profits of utilities.
“When companies like ComEd and FirstEnergy have billions of dollars at stake, spending tens of millions of dollars on campaign contributions, bribes and other activities is sort of a down payment, and that’s sad,” said Howard Learner, president and executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center in Chicago.
The Illinois and Ohio scandals touch on hotly contested policy debates about the transition to renewable energy and whether nuclear power, which is carbon-free, is so important to that transition that it needs to be subsidized.
But David Pomerantz, executive director of the Energy and Policy Institute, a watchdog group that investigates corruption by utilities, said such debates are largely beside the point.
The core problem, he said, is something much simpler: Utilities have shown a pattern of trying “to spend money to influence policy in ways that, above all, protect or strengthen their monopolies and grow their profits, agnostic of the climate impacts.”
Pomerantz said he thinks that reducing the political power of utilities will be good for renewable energy and the climate in the long run, because renewable energy has public support and is competitive on the market.
“If we get the corrupting influence of utility money out of politics, I’ll very happily take my chances with honest policy debates that engage the public, which broadly supports the rapid transition from fossil fuels to clean energy,” he said.
For Utilities, the Best of Both Worlds
The Illinois and Ohio scandals are tied to the ways utility companies have responded to the competition brought on by electricity deregulation. Both states are among the 15 or so that implemented deregulation laws in the late 1990s and early 2000s, leading to systems today in which power plants must compete on an open market.
At one time, nuclear and coal-fired power plants were strong competitors on that market, but now they are struggling because of the low costs to operate plants that run on natural gas, along with the plunging costs of wind and solar power.
Rather than close plants that are not profitable or barely profitable, plant owners have chosen to seek government subsidies.
Illinois passed the Future Energy Jobs Act in 2016, one of the measures cited in the U.S. attorney’s recent filing as being tainted by corruption. The law provided subsidies for two nuclear power plants and included a major expansion of the state’s support for renewable energy and energy efficiency. The nuclear plants are owned by Exelon, which is ComEd’s parent company.
The law’s supporters argued that the plants were a vital source of carbon-free power and that they were important for jobs and the economy.
Other states have enacted their own laws or regulatory actions in recent years that include nuclear subsidies as part of a package or a larger agenda that also expanded use of renewable energy. They include Connecticut, New Jersey and New York.
In Ohio, it was a different story, with elected officials hostile to renewable energy. House Bill 6, passed in 2019, gave more than a billion dollars to two nuclear power plants owned by a company with ties to FirstEnergy. It also provided subsidies for two coal-fired power plants owned by Ohio Valley Electric Corp., and canceled the requirements of a 2008 law that had required utilities to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Environmental groups that had supported the 2016 Illinois law opposed the 2019 one in Ohio. But the laws are alike in that they started as nuclear bailouts and then sponsors added whatever provisions they needed to get them passed.
Both laws subvert the market, which is unfair to competing owners of power plants, said Michael Haugh, an energy policy consultant who has done work for the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, the state’s utility consumer advocate, and for the R Street Institute, a think tank that advocates for open markets and limited government.
The result is that utilities have a system in which they can earn substantial profits in situations where they are well-equipped to compete, and can get government protection to guarantee profits when they are ill-equipped to compete.
“They found the way to walk the line in-between,” Haugh said, which, he added, is “the best of both worlds” for the companies.
Favors and Inducements
Documents in the Illinois case describe years of favors and other inducements that ComEd provided to a “Public Official A.” Although the documents do not name the official, they refer to the person as speaker of the Illinois House during the period of the alleged crimes. That was Mike Madigan, a Democrat, who remains speaker.
ComEd agreed to pay a fine of $200 million and cooperate with the investigation, while Madigan has not been charged. A spokeswoman for Madigan said he “never made a legislative decision with improper motives and has engaged in no wrongdoing here.”
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, also a Democrat, said at a public appearance last week that he is “furious with what is being reported” and that Madigan has a lot that he needs to answer for, to authorities and voters.
The agreement between prosecutors and ComEd was the largest development so far in an investigation that Chicago media have been reporting on since last summer, based on reports of authorities raiding officials’ homes and offices.
Threats and Payoffs
In contrast to the slow burn of the Illinois probe, the one in Ohio remained a secret until authorities made arrests in the early hours of July 21.
The Ohio arrests included not only Householder, the speaker of the House, but also four of his associates who were part of what prosecutors said was the largest bribery scheme in Ohio history.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio issued an affidavit with much more detail than the documents in Illinois, describing how “Company A” provided nearly all of more than $60 million that went to a dark money group controlled by Householder, which he then used to help the company, help his political career, and cover a variety of personal expenses. Company A is FirstEnergy.
The affidavit tells the story of a plan that took years to unfold, starting in 2016 when a FirstEnergy subsidiary, FirstEnergy Solutions, said that its two Ohio nuclear plants were losing money and would need to close unless they got help from the government.
That same year, Householder was planning a return to the Ohio House, running for a seat in the body where he had served from 1997 to 2004, including a previous stint as speaker.
Householder narrowly won election by his colleagues as House speaker in 2019 and soon released the first draft of a nuclear bailout measure that he said was a high priority.
He rammed the bill through in the House and Senate, using threats and promises to cajole his colleagues to support the measure and over the objections of a broad range of business and environmental groups. Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, signed the bill.
But the fight didn’t end when the bill became law. Opponents of the bill announced that they would gather signatures for a referendum to give voters a chance to repeal the law. The dark money group and affiliated groups responded with an aggressive campaign to prevent the opponents from getting the signatures they needed.
This included buying up contracts of national signature gathering firms, essentially paying them to not work in Ohio. It meant getting contact information for individual signature gatherers and sending them text messages offering $2,500 and a plane ticket to quit their jobs. It also meant hiring “blockers,” paid operatives who followed signature-gatherers and tried to persuade the public not to sign.
Meanwhile, Householder’s allies wanted inside information from the referendum campaign, so they paid $15,000 to get an employee of the campaign to divulge secrets, and threatened to burn his house down if he revealed the existence of the payoff. The threat was phrased as if it were a joke, but the threat was clear, the employee told prosecutors.
The push for a ballot measure ended in failure, with organizers saying they were unable to get enough signatures because of all the dirty tricks.
While many of the details in the affidavit were shocking—like Householder using money from the dark money group to pay for repairs to his second home in Florida—it was well-known that Householder was extremely close to FirstEnergy. For example, Ohio media had reported that the company had hosted Householder and his son on the company’s jet to attend President Donald Trump’s inauguration.
“It was no secret that this was the quid pro quo for FirstEnergy helping Householder get the speakership,” said Janine Migden-Ostrander, a principal at the Regulatory Assistance Project who was head of the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel from 2004 to 2011.
What was a secret was that Householder controlled the dark money groups and the extent to which FirstEnergy was financing the groups, she said.
DeWine said on Thursday that the law should be repealed and replaced in light of the evidence of corruption.
Meanwhile, FirstEnergy has said it did nothing wrong.
“This is a serious and disturbing situation,” said Chuck Jones, FirstEnergy’s CEO, in a conference call with analysts on Friday. “Ethical behavior and upholding the highest standards of conduct are foundational values for the entire FirstEnergy family and me personally.”
The company has said little about the specifics of the allegations. Householder has not commented on the charges since his arrest and his office did not respond to a request for comment.
Both the Illinois and Ohio investigations are ongoing.
A Wake-Up Call?
Analysts and advocates are hopeful that the scandals will serve as a wakeup call for the public about the deep flaws in the ways utilities influence the political system.
Hill, the Ohio State economist, said he hopes the scandals lead to fair competition and lower costs for consumers. He is wary of the possibility that environmental groups may respond by saying that Ohio should provide large subsidies for renewable energy, which he thinks would be taking the wrong lesson from what has happened.
“Green energy wins in competitive markets,” he said, citing the low prices of wind and solar power.
Another part of learning from the scandals is to recognize that some of the harmful activity is legal and shouldn’t be, like utilities’ ability to influence policy through untraceable donations to dark money groups, said Pomerantz of the Energy and Policy Institute.
“The line between what is legal corruption and illegal corruption in this country is incredibly fuzzy and porous,” he said.
PUBLISHED UNDER:CLEAN ENERGYOHIOILLINOISBRIBERYSCANDALCLIMATE CHANGEHOUSEHOLDERCOMMONWEALTH EDISONFIRSTENERGY
