Ganesan, Arvin[Ganesan.Arvin@epa.

gov]
POLITICO Pro Energy
Sent:
Fri 5/30/2014 10:06:13 AM
Subject: Morning Energy, presented by Fuels America: DOE proposes revamping LNG export
application process - GAO: No CRA vote for McConnell - Rule could boost nuclear
To:

From:

By Alex Guillen I 5/30/14 6:00 AM EDT

With help from Talia Buford and Adam Snider
DOE PROPOSES REVAMPING LNG EXPORT APPLICATION PROCESS: Amid heavy
pressure from energy companies and lawmakers to speed up approvals of LNG export permits,
DOE announced Thursday it planned to streamline its evaluation process. DOE plans to stop
issuing conditional approvals for proposed liquefied natural gas plants before environmental
reviews have been completed, and the agency will now issue that permission once a project
makes it through a rigorous FERC process. But industry advocates say the changes will muddy
the waters on LNG exports. Talia Buford has the story: =~~==~~==-"~=
Hashing it out on the Hill: Several Democrats scrambled over each other to claim credit for the
proposed policy change. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Mary Landrieu's
office blasted out a statement saying DOE had made the move after being "pressed by
Landrieu." Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Udall said he is glad "that the administration has heeded my
call and took today's step in the right direction,'' while Finance Chairman Ron Wyden said he is
"pleased to see DOE has taken my suggestions to heart." Several Republicans, including Reps.
Fred Upton, Cory Gardner and Joe Barton, criticized the change, though Sen. Lisa Murkowski
called it "a positive step toward fixing a needlessly confusing regulatory review that had become
disengaged from economic reality."
LNG EXPORT SUPPORTERS GET BOOST FROM DOE REPORTS: In a new addendum
to a study on the environmental impacts of unconventional gas production, DO E's National
Energy Technology Laboratory notes that it is impossible to fully understand the environmental
impacts without knowing details about future gas production. "Nevertheless,'' the report says,
"assuming for the purpose of this document that LNG export proposals would result in additional
export volumes, DOE believes those LNG export volumes would be offset by some combination
of increased domestic production of natural gas (principally from unconventional sources),
decreased domestic consumption of natural gas, and an adjustment to the U.S. net trade balance
in natural gas with Canada and Mexico." More: ==~~==~~~=
And another report from NETL concluded that exporting LNG from the U.S. to Europe and
Asia would not increase life cycle greenhouse gas emissions over using regionally extracted
coal. While there is uncertainty introduced by factors like distance gas would have to be
transported and the efficiency of individual power plants, the report concludes that "for most
scenarios in both the European and Asian regions, the generation of power from imported natural
gas has lower life cycle GHG emissions than power generation from regional coal." Read:
~~~~=~~~~='. DOE will take public comments on both documents for 45 days before
the department starts considering the reports for LNG export applications.

CREW FOIA 2014-006851-0000693

But wait, there's more: DOE also plans to update its 2012 study on the economics of LNG
exports "in order to gain a better understanding of how potential U.S. LNG exports between 12
and 20 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) could affect the public interest." In the meantime, DOE
will continue working on export applications.
HAPPY FRIDAY and welcome to Morning Energy. Send your energy news to
=====~~==' and follow on Twitter

and

THE LATEST ON EPA'S CLIMATE RULES

GAO to McConnell - No CRA vote for you: The Government Accountability Office said
Thursday that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell can't use a Congressional Review Act
resolution to overturn EPA' s proposed rule for future power plants because the regulation is not
yet final. The rule, released in September, isn't set to become final until January. McConnell's
office vowed to continue trying to stop the regulation. Andrew Restuccia has more:

Rule a nukes booster? The rule could give states a new reason to embrace their nuclear power
plants. At least that's the hope of the nuclear industry, which has struggled with a wave of plant
shutdowns as companies face high repair costs, unfriendly power markets and competition with
cheap natural gas and subsidized wind power. Darius Dixon: _,,___,_____ __,_____ _ __
Boehner: I'm 'not qualified' to talk science: Some leading conservatives have a new talking
point on climate science: They're not qualified to talk about it. House Speaker John Boehner
became the latest top Republican to try that tack Thursday, following in the footsteps of Florida
Gov. Rick Scott earlier in the week. It's a new twist on a strategy some Republican leaders
adopted last year, in which they sought to make jobs and the economy their main staging ground
for attacking Obama's climate agenda. Darren Goode:=======~==~==~==Ashes to ashes: The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops "wise action to address climate change is
required now to protect the common good for present and future generations." National Catholic
Reporter:====~~~=-'-~==

With a cherry on top: Add West Virginia Republican Shelley Moore Capito to the list of
lawmakers asking President Obama to just walk away from the regulation. "Because of coal's
role in our state's economy, West Virginians will suffer disproportionally from a regulation that
is designed to tum our country away from this affordable and abundant natural resource,'' she
writes:==~~~=~~~~

Radio Free EPA: Obama will talk about the rule in his weekly address tomorrow, according to
the Wall Street Journal: ==~~~~="-"'-'-=~
Plus: The League of Conservation Voters also has a memo out today touting public support for
EPA carbon rules:~~~~~------~

CREW FOIA 2014-006851-0000694

Op-ed watch: Harvard law professor Jody Freeman, a former White House energy and
environment adviser to Obama, writes that EPA has a solid legal foundation with the rnle:
==~--"==~=~"' And Paul Krngman says the Chamber of Commerce's report blasting the
rnle's potential costs actually indicates that "the numbers are remarkably small."

** EPA's proposal to weaken the Renewable Fuel Standard would seriously undercut
investments in America's low carbon advanced biofuel industry. Caving to oil industry pressure
and reducing the market for renewable fuels would undercut the industry's ability to invest ...
especially if the Administration's rationale is the oil industry's refusal to provide renewable fuels
infrastrncture despite a law requiring them to. Thirty-three advanced biofuel leaders told
President Obama how the proposal would hurt their industry:
**

E&C PANEL COMBS OVER DOE LOAN PROGRAM: Energy and Commerce
Committee's oversight panel holds a hearing this morning on DOE's loan programs. Lawmakers
have plenty of potential questions to choose from, including the $8 billion in loan guarantees
DOE is looking to offer for advanced fossil energy projects and another $4 billion for renewable
energy and energy efficiency projects. Another likely topic is the Advanced Technology
Vehicles Manufacturing loan program, which still has about $16 billion in authority - including
the potential of opening up ATVM loans to driverless car suppliers. DOE loan chief Peter
Davidson, as well as a DOE deputy inspector general and the Government Accountability
Office's energy director, will testify. Details:
9:15 a.m., Rayburn 2123
TODAY IN NEW LEGISLATION
Cool roofs: Sen. Ben Cardin's Energy-Efficieny Cool Roofs Act, co-sponsored by Republicans
Mike Crapo and Dean Heller, shortens the depreciation period for energy efficient roofs from 39
years - a period the sponsors say is much longer than the average roof lifespan - to 20 years.
Cardin has filed the bill as an amendment to the Senate's stalled tax extenders package, and a
companion piece in the House is backed by Republican Tom Reed and Democrat Bill Pascrell.
Bill text: ~~~~~~~~"""
Overseas coal: Rep. Jared Huffman has introduced a bill blocking the Export-Import Bank from
financing any "high carbon intensity project," namely coal. As part of his climate agenda,
President Barack Obama directed Ex-Im last year to stop financing most overseas coal projects,
but House Republicans included a rider on the omnibus spending bill earlier this year blocking
the agency from carrying that plan out. Read: ==~==~~=~
SCORED: H.R. 3301, Fred Upton's bill easing cross-boundary energy infrastrncture permit
requirements, would cost relevant agencies less than $500,000 per year, the Congressional
Budget Office says: ==~=~~~-'--==
DUST TO DUST: The Huffington Post looks at coal companies that hide health threats from
regulators. "Cheating on dust samples has been something of an open secret in the coal industry
for years, a fact acknowledged by MSHA. Industry watchdogs suspect that some mines often
operate with dust levels above the 2.0 milligram level, let alone the new, lower threshold of 1.5."

CREW FOIA 2014-006851-0000695

MINERS, NOT MINORS: Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz joins Sen. Mark Udall at the
Colorado School of Mines in Golden today for a summit with energy business leaders on
Colorado's "diverse approach to energy development."
WONK ALERT: The Energy Information Administration now has a Flickr page:
=~~=+-~~~,_,_.No word on when petroleum import charts will be available with filters on
Instagram.

MORE THAN 500 INFLUENTIAL ENERGY VOICES ON ONE PLATFORM: Track the
energy conversation on Twitter with POLITICO's #Energy Insider Tweet Hub, featuring top
tweets from energy reporters, influencers and lawmakers: =~~~~~~'-"--'"!.
OP-ED WATCH: President Obama will approve Keystone XL after the midterm elections to
eliminate a "potent political weapon" for the GOP while insulating Hillary Clinton from the
issue, Paul Bledsoe, a Clinton-era White House climate aide, writes in Roll Call:

TODAY IN WEIRD NEWS: Via the AP: "A Tennessee man who appeared on 'The Millionaire
Matchmaker' is accused of trying to extort $2.5 million from a nuclear weapons plant in
exchange for 1,200 slides that he allegedly claimed would be damaging if released publicly."
AP:==~'-=~~~~

QUICK HITS

-The Justice Department wants BNP Paribas to pay $10 billion over allegations it evaded
sanctions against Iran, unnamed sources tell the Wall Street Journal: =~~~~~='-'~"'-==
-BusinessWeek looks at Chevron's retreat away from renewable energy development:

- Statoil says police have removed Greenpeace activists who scaled an Arctic rig. Wall Street
Journal: =~~==~=='-''-'-=~~
- Eight East and West Coast states team up on action plan to have 3.3 million zero-emission
vehicles on the road by 2025. AP:=~==~~~~
- Harry Reid's attacks on the Koch brothers is making other GOP donors give to groups that do
not disclose supporters' names, the Washington Post writes: =~~=~~=~""- The Sierra Club sues LG&E over alleged pollution from coal ash containment ponds near
Louisville. Courier-Journal: ~~~~~-------

CREW FOIA 2014-006851-0000696

Officials believe a cow caused a small natural gas liquids spill in North Dakota. AP:

HAPPENING TODAY

8 a.m. St. NW

Standard & Poor's holds a breakfast discussion on climate change economics. 805 15th

8:30 a.m. -The Veolia Institute, Agence Francaise de Developpement, International Union for
Conservation of Nature, and the U.S. National Research Council's Water Science and
Technology Board continue their conference on large-scale restoration and sustainable
development. Speakers today include Prince Albert of Monaco, IPCC Chairman Rajendra
Pachauri, Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, UN Convention to Combat Desertification General
Secretary Monique Barbut and World Resources Institute President Andrew Steer.
=~~~~=-'-~~= 2101 Constitution Ave. NW
THAT'S ALL FOR ME. Have a great weekend.
SEE IT FIRST: THE FRIDAY COVER - The highly anticipated weekly reveal from
POLITICO Magazine. Drive the conversation every Friday morning by seeing it first. Sign up
here:=~~"'-===~=-"-=.cc.1-=

Only Pros know news first on - ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS, TELEMEDICINE,

HEALTH APPS and FEDERAL HEALTH IT. POLITICO Pro eHealth launches Tuesday, June
3 covering all of these topics and more. Plus, Pros get exclusive access to instant intelligence,
smart analysis, customized content and Pro-only events. For more info, contact us today at

** The EPA' s proposal to weaken the Renewable Fuel Standard would seriously undercut
private sector investments in America's emerging cellulosic ethanol and advanced biofuel
industry - which is beginning commercial scale production at four new plants this year. Caving
to oil industry pressure and reducing the market for renewable fuels would undercut the
industry's ability to make investments in advanced biofuels ... especially if the Administration's
rationale for the reduction is the fact that the oil industry is refusing to provide the infrastmcture
to sell renewable fuels in spite of a law requiring them to do so. America can't afford to take
two steps backward on our environment and our energy security just as low carbon advanced
biofuels are emerging as a game-changing renewable fuel. Read what DuPont, Abengoa,
Novozymes, Poet DSM and 30 other advanced biofuel leaders told President Obama about how
*
the EPA proposal would hurt their industry:
Stories from POLITICO Pro

CREW FOIA 2014-006851-0000697

DOE seeks to streamline LNG reviews, but industry's not impressed

By Talia Buford I 5/29/14 7:27 PM EDT
Amid heavy pressure from energy companies and lawmakers to speed up approvals of LNG
export permits, the Energy Department announced Thursday it planned to streamline its
evaluation process.
DOE plans to stop issuing conditional approvals for proposed liquefied natural gas plants before
environmental reviews have been completed, and the agency will now issue that permission once
a project makes it through a rigorous FERC process.
But industry advocates say the changes will muddy the waters on LNG exports.
"Basically what they're doing here is flipping [the process] upside down with a justification that
makes it look like this will streamline things, but in essence, they've added these additional
conditions for NEPA," said Daniel Kish, senior vice president of policy at the Institute for
Energy Research, referring to the National Environmental Policy Act reviews.
The proposed changes were unveiled in a blog post by Christopher Smith, DOE' s principal
deputy assistant secretary for fossil energy, and will be subject to a 45-day public review and
comment period ending on July 21.
DOE also said it will begin a new economic study and it released two environmental reports that
examine the environmental footprint of unconventional gas production and the greenhouse gas
impacts of LNG exports.
The changes, Smith wrote, are being undertaken to "reflect changing market dynamics," since
the conditional reviews were originally intended to give companies the assurances necessary for
them to continue investing during the NEPA and FERC processes. Smith said investors are
already undertaking those investments prior to the Energy Department review.
"By removing the intermediate step of conditional decisions and setting the order of DOE
decision-making based on readiness for final action, DOE will prioritize resources on the more
commercially advanced projects,'' Smith wrote. The change will also "improve the quality of
information" that DOE makes public about its determinations.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) agreed with DOE's changes, especially welcoming DOE's
commitment to additional study on LNG exports.

CREW FOIA 2014-006851-0000698

"The Energy Department is doing the right thing today by taking steps to protect America's
advantage,'' Wyden said. "I have long said that the studies DOE has relied on need to be updated
to reflect current market conditions and data. I am pleased to see DOE has taken my suggestions
to heart and that we will look before we leap in order to maximize the economic and
environmental benefits of natural gas. A clearer process will mean more certainty for developers
and workers about which projects are commercially viable."
But Bill Cooper, president of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, said the DOE change will
create more regulatory uncertainty by combining its two roles as regulator of natural gas and a
participant in the FERC process.
"The approval is pushed to the end of the line,'' Cooper said. "You can go through the entire
FERC process, spend millions - scores of millions of dollars - chasing that and you still don't
know what will happen at DOE, which is an agency that has shown a proclivity to changing it's
rules, as evidenced by today."
Still, the change won't necessarily hurt all the companies seeking to build projects, Cooper said.
Projects that have received conditional approval were already going through the FERC process,
and several others may be close to finishing that DOE process, so they may decide it doesn't
make sense to contest the rule change, he said.
Industry associations said they hoped the change helps to clear the logjam of projects at DOE.
"We are hopeful that this approach accelerates the process for approving LNG export terminals
but we are still studying the proposal to see what the impacts will be,'' said Dan Whitten,
spokesman for America's Natural Gas Alliance.
"It remains to be seen whether the new guidelines will improve the current process, but there's
no doubt that the system today is too slow,'' said Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry
operations at the American Petroleum Institute. "The economic and environmental benefits of
LNG exports are well-established by numerous studies and reports, and the time for review is
past."

On the Hill, some members of Congress were optimistic about the changes' ultimate effect on
the process.
"I have long warned that the United States faces a narrowing window of opportunity to enter the
global gas trade,'' said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), ranking member on the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources committee. "This proposal for reform is a positive step toward fixing a
needlessly confusing regulatory review that had become disengaged from economic reality. I
continue to oppose delays to the build-out of our export capacity, which I firmly believe to be in
the national interest, and do not believe additional study is necessary."
Others didn't mince their words, or attempt to hide their distrust of the administration's efforts.

CREW FOIA 2014-006851-0000699

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) called the changes "a poorly disguised tactic to slow down the LNG
review process and hamstring the development of our abundant and clean burning natural gas
resource."
He continued: "This is just another example of the White House moving the goal posts and falls
into the Obama administration's familiar pattern of unreasonable delays and unauthorized rule
changes."
Several Democrats - including Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Udall of Colorado, Ed
Markey of Massachusetts and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan - hailed the changes as a positive
development, although some reiterated their desire that DOE and the administration closely
study how natural gas exports would affect the environment and U.S. consumers.
"America shouldn't export first and ask questions later," said Markey, who called for "hitting the
pause button on any new natural gas export approvals" while the studies and environmental
.
.
reviews are ongomg.
"Low-cost natural gas provides our nation with a national security and economic advantage that
supports America's manufacturers and consumers,'' he said. "We should not give away that
advantage without full analysis and debate.
GAO thwarts McConnell's attempt to kill climate rule

By Andrew Restuccia I 5/29/14 6:05 PM EDT

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's push to kill a major proposed EPA climate
regulation is going to have to wait.
The Government Accountability Office
Thursday that McConnell can't use a Congressional
Review Act resolution to overturn EPA' s
for future power plants because the
regulation is not yet final. The rule, released in September, isn't set to become final until
January.
McConnell's office vowed to continue trying to stop the regulation.
"While Leader McConnell was disappointed by the GAO ruling, he will continue to use every
possible tool at his disposal to protect American families from the President's costly overregulation and devastating War on Coal,'' McConnell spokesman Michael Brumas said in a
statement.
The decision is a boon to the EPA and its allies - and it comes just days before the agency is set
to unveil an even bigger
for existing power plants. But it's a blow to
McConnell because it makes it less likely he'll secure an anti-EPA vote before the November
elections.

CREW FOIA 2014-006851-0000700

under the CRA, a seldom-invoked law that allows lawmakers to repeal a regulation with a simple
majority vote. It marked the first time that a senator has filed such challenge to a rule that hasn't
become final yet.
In a January
to Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, who heads the GAO, McConnell made
the case that the proposed climate rule warranted special treatment because the agency proposed
the regulation "under a very unusual provision" of the Clean Air Act. The provision, McConnell
argues, means that any power plant whose construction has begun after the regulation is
published is already subject to the rule.
"Thus, the proposed [greenhouse gas] rule immediately changes the legal landscape for anyone
seeking to develop a fossil fuel power plant,'' McConnell (R-Ky.) wrote.
But GAO special counsel Susan Poling wrote in an opinion Thursday that the office's
responsibilities under the CRA are not triggered until a rule is finalized.
"Under CRA's statutory scheme, GAO's role is not triggered by the issuance of proposed rules,''
Poling wrote. "GAO's role under CRA is to receive the rules submitted by executive branch
agencies and issue reports to Congress on the major rules received. Proposed rules, whether
major or nonmajor, are not submitted to GAO."
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer applauded the decision.
"The Congressional Review Act was not intended to cover proposed rules because it would be so
disruptive to the regulatory process,'' the California Democrat said in a statement. "GAO's legal
opinion ensures that the public will be able to comment and fully participate in the rulemaking
process, including the President's proposals on limiting dangerous carbon pollution."
The Natural Resources Defense Council said allowing a CRA challenge on a proposed rule
would have set a horrible precedent.
"If Sen. McConnell's preemptive tactic were allowed to go forward, it would open the door to
congressional meddling in every proposed health and safety protection and would have
politicized a process that should be based on law and science," said Franz Matzner, NRDC's
associate director of government affairs. "Blocking critical health protections before agency
experts have had a chance to fully consider public input was never the intent of the
Congressional Review Act."

Republicans' recent efforts to overturn finalized EPA rules using the CRA have fallen short of
garnering enough support in the Senate.back
EPA climate rule could lift nuclear's fortunes

By Darius Dixon I 5/29/14 4:15 PM EDT

CREW FOIA 2014-006851-0000701

plants.
At least that's the hope of the nuclear industry, which has struggled with a wave of plant
==~-'= as companies face high repair costs, unfriendly power markets and competition with
cheap natural gas and subsidized wind power.
Now, by aiming to take a whack out of greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, the
regulation that EPA is expected to release Monday could breathe new life into prospects for
nuclear plants' carbon-free energy.
Of course, it's too early to say how much greenhouse gas cutting the EPA will demand, or how
states will decide to meet the new standard. But the rule should make states less likely to
relinquish the reactors already producing thousands of carbon-free megawatt-hours inside their
borders, analysts say.
"A state's not going to be as agnostic toward energy sources anymore," said Kyle Aarons, a
senior fellow with the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. "States are going to start valuing
zero-carbon energy more than they do already."
For one thing, it's widely expected that EPA' s rule will allow for emissions reductions to be
applied statewide, rather than just plant by plant. If that's the case, the loss of a nuclear plant
would mean that a state would have to replace a considerable amount of power with renewables,
or risk seeing its total carbon emissions rise.
"Individual state designs" responding to the rule could include
similar
to the Northeast's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Exelon Corp. CEO Chris Crane noted.
Those designs could include explicit moves to benefit nuclear power, said Crane - whose
company, the country's largest nuclear operator, has been openly pondering the closure of some
of its plants.
The new interest in maintaining nuclear power, which makes up about 20 percent of the U.S.
electricity supply but more than 60 percent of the nation's carbon-free power, is at odds with the
industry's increasingly dire economic straits. In the last four years, five nuclear plants have
either retired or announced plans to do so - totaling about 4,800 megawatts of nuclear-based
electricity that will leave the grid by 2020.
Some in the industry say a nation awash in natural gas, with regional power markets that value
low price ahead of reliability and stability, has been eating away at nuclear' s ability to remain
profitable.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), an outspoken critic of the industry, poked fun at it earlier this month
by turning around an old adage about how nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter."
Instead, he said, it's become "too expensive to matter."
But lately, some states are beginning to make it clear that they want to help nuclear maintain its
foothold.

CREW FOIA 2014-006851-0000702

On Wednesday, the Illinois state House advanced a

urging FERC, EPA, regional grid
operators and several state agencies to adopt policies that help nuclear power. The bill is
sponsored by Democratic state House Speaker Michael Madigan, Republican leader Jim Durkin
and three other members. Nuclear power represents more than 45 percent of the electricity in the
state, and the resolution calls nuclear plants "the only greenhouse gas (GHG) free source of
predictable, non-intermittent, and reliable electric generation."
Other states could find themselves working together on implementing EPA' s greenhouse gas
rule, perhaps by creating new trading networks, said Jennifer Macedonia, a senior adviser at the
Bipartisan Policy Center.
Such a network might present indirect ways to help nuclear power by improving the competitive
economics of nuclear generation and allowing increases in nuclear power output that offset fossilfuel generation to count as part of a compliance strategy.
"Nuclear fares better in a system that allows trading to comply with performance standards
compared to an approach where each plant must reduce its emission rate by X,'' Macedonia said.
Coal - the cheapest, dirtiest and most abundant fossil fuel - would bear the heaviest burden in
EPA's rule. Crane hopes that culling the power fleet of old coal plants will help secure "better
pricing" for nuclear and other sources with fewer emissions.
"I do think that the retirement of what we call the Eisenhower era of coal plants will help
improve the economics of not only the nuclear fleet but also the clean, large coal units as the
constrained prices come up,'' he said at a Resources for the Future event earlier this month when
asked about the rule.
Another option to boost nuclear could mirror the renewable portfolio standards already on the
books in dozens of states.
While a majority of states require utilities to get a portion of their electricity from renewable
energy, Ohio's energy portfolio standard allows nuclear to fill up to half of the state's goals.
Other states could expand their standards in a similar way.
Aarons said one way to press the cost difference would be to put a price on carbon emissions something a grid operator could do when a generator bids into the electricity market. "So, coal
becomes significantly more expensive, gas becomes slightly more expensive and zero-carbon
source [would] stay the same,'' he said.
"Grid operators are still making their dispatch decisions based on the lowest cost generator,'' he
said. But those cost figures "now include carbon.

Republicans on climate science: Don't ask us

By Darren Goode I 5/29/14 7:27 PM EDT

CREW FOIA 2014-006851-0000703

Some leading conservatives have a new talking point on climate science: They're not qualified to
talk about it.
House Speaker John Boehner became the latest top Republican to try that tack Thursday, seeking
to deflect an issue that has given Democrats an opening to brand the GOP as "anti-science."
"Listen, I'm not qualified to debate the science over climate change," Boehner told reporters
when asked about the science behind climate change. "But I am astute to understand that every
proposal that has come out of this administration to deal with climate change involves hurting
our economy and killing American jobs."
Similarly, Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott has offered the response
on
multiple occasions when the topic has come up lately. Even the conservative billionaires Charles
and David Koch, who have put big money into fighting President Barack Obama' s energy and
climate policies, disclaimed any pretense at scientific know-how when wealthy climate activist
Tom Steyer challenged them to a debate on climate change.
"We are not experts on climate change," Koch spokeswoman Melissa Cohlmia said in an
to The Wichita Eagle this month. She added, "The debate should take place among the scientific
community, examining all points of view and void of politics, personal attacks and partisan
agendas."
It's a new twist on a strategy some Republican leaders
in which they sought to
make jobs and the economy their main staging ground for attacking Obama's climate agenda.
Of course, some conservatives still scoff at the consensus among mainstream climate scientists
that the Earth is warming, in large part because of human causes, and that potentially devastating
consequences await. The best known may be Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who wrote a book
branding the whole idea a "hoax" and a "conspiracy." But House Science Chairman Lamar
Smith (R-Texas) also dove into the issue at a
Thursday, arguing that the debate on
climate science is "not settled."
"The president says there is no debate,'' Smith said. "Actually, the debate has just begun."
But other Republicans appear to have softened their views.
Scott, for example, had said in 2011 that he's not convinced "there's any man-made climate
change." Now he's facing a tough fight for reelection -in one of
nationwide where
Steyer is aiming to make climate change a litmus test for voters.
Another reason for the change in tone could be Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubia's recent
struggles over the topic. After taking a public pummeling, Rubio had to walk back
this
month in which he told ABC News that "I don't agree with the notion that some are putting out
there, including scientists, that somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually
have an impact on what's happening in our climate."

CREW FOIA 2014-006851-0000704

Other Republicans got the message, one GOP political consultant surmised.
"You don't want what happened to Marco Rubio happen to you," the consultant said. "And so
the viewpoint of politicians is there's no upside to being dragged into the quicksand of climate
change science. It's the easy way out of a sophisticated conversation."
Polling also shows the public largely siding with scientists on the reality of climate change and
the human impact, while the issue of climate change still lags far behind issues like the economy,
jobs and Obamacare. "So what's the point of a politician diving into climate science?" the GOP
consultant asked.
Conservative Republican energy consultant Mike McKenna was more dubious about the talking
point.
"Political guys have been training members to say it because they are afraid of the issue,'' he
said. "Issue staffers think it is ridiculous."
Liberals have noticed the tactic. The website DailyKos =~=Scott's new stance "climatechange-mutism" this week, while ThinkProgress
climate researchers as saying it's the job
of leaders like Boehner to understand the science.
Of course, this is not the first time a politician has used the I'm-no-expert gambit to try to skirt a
troublesome issue. Obama earned his own backlash after a 2008 presidential =~=~=-'--=
where he said the question of when life begins was "above my pay grade."
Still, environmentalists say the science issue poses special perils for Republicans who oppose
Obama's climate policies.
Attacking the research "looks less and less politically successful because you look like some
kind of throwback,'' said David Goldston, a former Republican chief of staff on the House
Science Committee who is now director of government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense
Council. "So that's fallen off the charts."
Of course, Republicans are still eager to argue that Obama' s policies will devastate the economy,
kill jobs and cause huge spikes in energy prices. Expect that debate to heat up after the
administration unveils its landmark
existing power plants on Monday.
While climate change and environmental policies overall have become more partisan, Goldston
said skeptics are on the defensive.
"They're going to try all sorts of economic arguments, where we think it's easier and easier to
prove that those arguments don't hold any weight,'' he said.
Erica Martinson and Lauren French contributed to this report.back

CREW FOIA 2014-006851-0000705

You've received this POLITICO Pro content because your customized settings include:
Energy Newsletter: Morning Energy. To change your alert settings, please go to

This email alert has been sent for the exclusive use of POLITICO Pro subscriber Arvin
Ganesan. Forwarding or reproducing the alert without the express, written permission of
POLITICO Pro is a violation of federal law and the POLITICO Pro subscription
agreement. Copyright 2014 by POLITICO LLC. To subscribe to Pro, please go to

CREW FOIA 2014-006851-0000706