A majority of Americans support expanding access
to clean energy, and yet it never registers as a key voting issue.
This year’s midterm election was a little bit different,
though. Healthcare, immigration and the economy were the top voter priorities
in 2018, but in some specific races and on some specific ballots, clean energy
was a central focus.
Here’s a rundown of the most important election results for
the renewable energy agenda.
Climate Solutions Caucus gets slammed
The Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives’
Climate Solutions Caucus were hard hit in Tuesday’s election. At least 13 of
the 45 Republican Caucus members have lost their seats and five retiring
members saw their seats claimed by Democrats. As of Wednesday afternoon, 20
Republican members had won back their seats, with two races (Mia Love in Utah
and Tom MacArthur in New Jersey) still too close to call.
Most notably, Carlos Curbelo, the Republican co-chairman of
the Climate Solutions Caucus, lost his seat in Florida. Curbelo sought to boost
his green credentials in a left-leaning district by introducing
a carbon tax earlier this year, but still failed to get the backing he
needed.
Some stakeholders fear damage to the Climate Solutions
Caucus will erode all possibility of passing lasting, bipartisan climate
legislation. Conserve America, a politically conservative
environmental group, blamed the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation
Voters for slowing progress on climate change by opposing 27 of the 45 GOP
Caucus members, including Curbelo.
The Climate Solutions Caucus will now have to restructure
(if it survives), because it requires equal participation from both parties.
But it’s unclear how big of an effect this will have on climate action in
Congress. Republican Caucus members have voted against numerous pro-environment
bills, despite their affiliation with the climate group.
Also, with Democrats now in control of the House, they can
launch new efforts to address climate change and other environmental issues,
which have taken a back seat in light of Republicans’ deregulatory agenda.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has already said she would resurrect
the defunct select committee on climate change if her party took the House.
Democrats are also likely to push for modernizing energy
infrastructure in order to deploy greater amounts of renewable energy, as
outlined in the leadership’s “Better Deal” proposal. Steve Valk, communications director
for the Citizens Climate Lobby, said he's optimistic a bipartisan climate bill
will be introduced next session. He was also confident that the Climate
Solutions Caucus would continue to grow.
“The Climate Solutions Caucus will go on, even though we’ve
lost a number of Republicans, including Carlos Curbelo," Valk said in an
interview.
Over the past two years the Caucus grew from six Republican
members to 45 Republican members. “That’s because our volunteers were
engaged with their members of Congress in their districts and asking them to
join," he said. "We’ll continue to do that and we’re confident we’ll
find more Republicans to replace the ones who aren’t returning.”
In other House race news, North Carolina Democrat Dan
McCready, who ran on a clean energy platform in a conservative district, failed
to win his race — but came close.
Notably, Democrat Sean Casten secured a seat in the House on
Tuesday while running explicitly on a climate
and clean energy platform in a tight Illinois swing district. Casten
has a background in the clean energy industry and has called for using
“competitive markets to encourage energy innovation.”
Nevada voters say yes to a 50% RPS, no to retail competition
Nevada voters passed Question 6 on Tuesday, which calls for the state to
use 50 percent renewable energy by the year 2030. Supporters say Question 6
will generate hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity and create
thousands of new Nevada jobs.
“Clean energy is putting Nevadans to work, with more than
25,000 strong employed in 2017,” said Ray Fakhoury, state policy manager with
the national business group Advanced Energy Economy, in statement. “By
increasing the state’s renewable standard, Nevada has set itself up to continue
reaping the economic benefits for years to come.”
Major corporations, including casinos and data centers, have recently been investing heavily in
renewable energy in Nevada. With the passage of Question 6, Alli Gold Roberts,
senior manager of state policy with Ceres, said the state is “poised to
continue to attract corporate renewable energy investment.”
Corporate clean energy buyers invested heavily in a separate
Nevada ballot measure, Question 3, which sought to deregulate Nevada’s retail
electricity market, but the measure was ultimately unsuccessful. Question 3 was
the subject of fierce debate. According to the Nevada Independent, it was
backed by Sheldon Adelson’s Sands Corp. (Adelson also happens to be a
major Republican donor) and the data company Switch, as well as many clean
energy and environmental groups.
But there were also concerns about how Question 3 would
affect electricity rates and clean energy adoption. The Natural Resources Defense
Council, the Sierra Club, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, and Western
Resource Advocates came
out against deregulating Nevada’s electricity market because of the
disruption they said it would cause to the state's clean energy progress. NV
Energy also opposed Question 3, and planned to spend $30 million on
defeating it.
Nevada voters previously approved Question 3 on the 2016 ballot by a wide margin. But with Tuesday’s vote,
the measure fails. In Nevada, proposals that would change the state
constitution are required to pass in two successive even-numbered election
years in order to be adopted.
Question 6, to boost the RPS to 50 percent, will now have to
pass again in 2020 in order to become law. AEE’s Fakhoury said consumers could
see benefits sooner than that. “Passing with wide support, the legislature and
governor-elect should move forward in the upcoming legislative session to enact
this landmark increase,” he said.
Arizona rejects 50% RPS
Arizona voters overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 127 on Tuesday, a constitutional amendment
that would have required 50 percent of the state's electricity to come from
renewable sources by 2030. It’s a significant victory for the state’s largest
utility, Arizona Public Service (APS), which spent heavily to oppose the
measure. California billionaire Tom Steyer's political group NextGen America
funded efforts in support of the measure.
Proposition 127 was by far the most expensive ballot
initiative in Arizona state history. Opponents said the measure would increase
electric bills by forcing utilities to build new solar and wind plants, which
would result in the early closure of coal plants and the state's lone nuclear
plant. Supporters argued those claims were unfounded given that renewable
energy resources are now competitive with fossil fuels, even when coupled with
battery storage.
APS
was particularly outspoken about losing the Palo Verde nuclear plant
if the RPS measure passed. If that plant goes offline, the utility argued,
greenhouse gas emissions in the state would rise.
While Proposition 127 has failed, Arizona regulators are still
considering a proposal to increase Arizona’s RPS to 80 percent by 2050 and
broaden it to also include nuclear power. APS generally supports that plan.
“We've said throughout this campaign there is a better way
to create a clean-energy future for Arizona that is also affordable
and reliable," said APS Chairman, President and CEO Don Brandt, in a
Tuesday statement.
Now that the campaign is over, he said the utility wants to
“continue the conversation with Arizonans about clean energy and identify
specific opportunities for APS to build energy infrastructure that will
position Arizona for the future.”
Washington state rejects a carbon price — again
Washington state has failed, once again, to pass a carbon tax. Initiative 1631, the Carbon Emissions Fee Measure, would have set a
carbon fee starting at $15 per ton in 2020, rising to around $55 per ton in
2035, depending on inflation.
This is the second major election in a row in which
Washington voters have rejected a ballot initiative that would put a price on
carbon emissions. The first such ballot was proposed in 2016 and failed.
Tuesday’s loss may cast doubt on the broader narrative that
states will lead on climate action in the absence of federal leadership, or it
could signal that Americans simply aren’t ready to get behind a carbon tax.
Alternatively, it could have all come down to spending. Supporters of
Initiative 1631 spent at least $12 million to advance the measure, while
opponents spent more than $25 million.
Colorado votes down a fracking ban
Colorado voters rejected a measure Tuesday that would have
blocked new oil and gas drilling within 2,500 feet of homes, schools and other
occupied areas.
Proposition 112 stemmed from complaints that fracking
was encroaching on populated areas, creating health and safety concerns. An
analysis showed that the measure would have blocked new oil and gas wells on 85
percent of nonfederal land in Colorado, which is America’s fifth-largest
gas-producing and seventh-largest oil-producing state.
Florida voters reject offshore drilling — and
e-cigarettes?
Offshore oil drilling and e-cigarette use in the workplace
were both rejected by Florida voters on Tuesday, as part of the same —
strange — ballot measure. The two seemingly unrelated issues were coupled
on Florida’s Amendment 9, nicknamed the “clean air, clean water”
amendment. The Constitution Revision Commission’s decision to approve the
joint measure for the ballot earlier this year has been roundly
criticized.
While voters agreed to ban oil and gas drilling off the
coast of the Sunshine State, oil and gas companies say the ballot is redundant,
given Florida already has statute in place that makes it illegal to drill
within state-controlled waters. Environmentalists generally supported Amendment
9, but warned there remains a threat that the Trump administration will allow
oil and gas drilling in federal waters just outside of Florida’s jurisdiction.
Californians keep the gas tax
No one really wants to pay more for fuel, and yet voters in
California just chose to keep the state’s higher gas tax in place. California
Republicans campaigned hard on the tax repeal, while Governor Jerry Brown
warned such a move would cut off the funding source for much-needed road
repairs.
Democrats passed the gas tax as part of SB
1, which also pledges that revenues will also go to bike and pedestrian
paths, rail projects and toward the state parks and agriculture departments.
No comments:
Post a Comment