Manchin Likely Just Put an End to Big Climate Bills

Perhaps you've heard, but Senator Mansion said earlier this month, last week actually that he won't support the climate provisions within the President's Build Back Better legislative package. Mansion said, the latest inflation numbers make it unwise right now for Congress to increase the deficit. This was a huge blow, of course, because Mansion is the fiftieth and thus most powerful Democrat in the Senate. Without him, the party can't

really pass hardly anything. It was also a bitter pill for the president because this is not the first time Mansion has come out against the President's climate legists Lasian. In fact, Democrats had already scaled back their ambitions in an effort to accommodate Mansion, an effort that now appears to have failed. Environmentalists are not happy to put it mildly,

but the center managine of a point. Is he just tanking this legislation because of his famous affection for the coal industry or is he really that concerned about inflation. We're gonna get into all of that with Ari Natter, a Bloomberg News reporter who covers energy on Capitolol Hill and who coincidentally is a proud Bloomberg law alum. I started off by asking Ari, what was actually in the

legislation that Mansion effectively quashed last week? Right? Well, um, you know, initially it was a lot bigger before mentioned killed it the first time. But the remaining package what was been negotiated include a whole slow of tax credits and we're talking to something like three billion dollars and tax credits for phicles and renewables and advanced emergy manufacturing and carbon capture. And that was where the start of the show in terms of climate and that would have

reduced the missions. So it sounds like it was, you know, mainly using the tax code to to try to accomplish this Yeah, that's what was was pretty much left and and a lot of the stuff that had initially been in the package, you know, some pretty state fees on new drilling infrastructure for instance. You know, got um you know, put in the waist bin. But yeah, the text there really there, really were going to marshal the tax code. Um. It sounds like it would have had some pretty significant

emission reductions. So let's now get to the second death blow. Uh, you know what happened this month? Um? So Senator Mansion said he was not ready to vote for this um and obviously the Democrats need him to pass anything. Can you explain what happened and why he is opposing this? Sure? Yeah, So, I mean after months of negotiating on these climate revisions,

including the tax measures. Um, you know, the new inflation figures came out that's inflation at nine point one percent and mentioned informed leadership it won't support any new climate spending, you know, only you know, a smaller package that would be limited to the A C, A and prescription drug prices. So that effectively killed the climate package in the in the deal. So you know, I think a lot of people who are listening probably know that Senator Mansion represents

West Virginia, which is a big coal state. He also has personal ties to the coal industry. So I think some people are assuming that he's doing this because he, you know it, is wanting to to sort of protect the coal industry. But that's not what he said. He said he's he's you know, opposing this for inflation reasons. What's going on? I mean, we can't get inside his head, but uh, why do you think he is really sort of taking this move now right? I don't think it's

as simple as um simply supporting his homestead call industry. Personally, I do think he was concerned about inflation and he hasn't ring the alarm bell uh for some time. Um. And also he hasn't the power where he could. He's really a position to get some stuff that would help his industry, and he had. I mean, they were very generous subsidies for carbon capture that would have saved and

provide coal plants billions of billions of dollars. Shouldn't was ready to give him um tax credits for hydrogen vehicles, um, you know, on par with the generous tax credits for electric vehicles. So I mean if Manchel wanted to do this. He really, I mean, he really could have helped you know, the coal industry too, you know, much of the shrigment of progressives. So I do think I do believe that

he was concerned about inflation. That's really interesting. So basically sort of too to put it in another way, like you know, do voting on this package would have actually helped the coal industry in its state. Yeah, that's that's accurate. Mansion. Actually, well, he didn't technically say this plan is dead. He just said he wanted to wait until after the August recess to see what inflation is looking like then. But is

it basically dead? I mean, is there any chance that something climate related will be able to pass in September whence they come back from the recess. I know some Democrats, some climate hats, are holding out hope for that, but I don't think that's going to be possible. Um, it's just gonna be too hard to do a second reconciliation bill in the time they have. Um I've required, you know, a lot of time, and these these all night vote

aramas they have to pass a new budget resolution. So um, you know, I don't I don't think that's going to happen. And um, you know a lot of senators I've talked to, uh, you know Merkley from Oregon for instance, and he's he's pretty much said, flat out dead. Well, let's let's take a step back there though, and talk about reconciliation. You know, I mean a lot of people listening may not be totally familiar with the Capitol Hill lingo. Uh, this is a maneuver on Capitol Hill where you can pass a

bill without by avoiding the sixty vote filibuster threshold. Can you get into a little bit why they need the Democrats need to use reconciliation and how that works right, Well, like you said, so this is a chance to get around that sixty vote thresholders that they don't have and evenly split fifty fifty. So this is their one chance so they can get all of the Democrats on board

to actually get some major major legislation done. But um, and that's also why they need Mansion, That's why it's so powerful in this And it sounds like there's no chance that they would hold off on doing reconciliation until after the recess. That's just a no go. Yeah, I mean Biden put a statement, you know, effectively saying, you know, do the do the healthcare stuff and the prescription dug

drug stuff. They need to get a win on on board, and even if it's smaller before the mid term elections and they go back for their August reassessed to campaign and so I mean they're pretty much in a position of doing this or nothing. Yeah, that makes sense. Um, let's get to the future now. Um, you know clearly this is not going to happen these big tax breaks for climate um you know, as you mentioned, or it's

all but dead, if not dead. Is there any climate legislation that Democrats can pass before the end of this session of Congress, like even sort of smaller stuff, piecemeal stuff, or is is this over until you know January of next year for climate? The actually is, David, there's something called the Amendment UM. This would have the US join international Pact to phase down the use of hfc's, which

are kind of a super pollutants. They are used in refrigeration and other equipment and that actually have a major, major um reduction in emissions. I think Energy See has said it's something like, uh, there's seventy billion um. So I mean that that would be a big deal and a win for climate and um, you know that measures past the Form Relations Committee, so it's poised to go over the floor. Um, you know when they want to

do that. Yeah, and that's really interesting. It's you know, unlike with the fossil fuel industry, the HFC industry is not nearly as powerful, doesn't have as many lobbyists in Washington. So it seems like it's you know, a lot more viable to to get that across than something that that hurts the fossil fuel industry. Right. Yeah, I mean there actually are you know, opponents of the amendment, but yeah,

it's it's a by Parson. It has enough by Parson support where the past Yeah, and then let's look to next year. Um. And the reason why I wanted to get into that is because, you know, after Mansion announced that he wouldn't be supporting this, I was, you know, watching social media, and there was just widespread despair among climate activists and environmental activists. I mean, it's pretty bleak.

Can we talk about why? Um? It seems like the next few months or maybe even the next few weeks are really the only opportunity to get major climate legislation passed. Things are looking bad for next year. Let's talk about that. Why is it now or never for climate? Yeah? So, I mean if Republicans take control of Congress, which it seems like they're placed to do, you know, never say never, But I mean that's the direction seems like it's going. Um. You know, I don't think a major in a climate

package is going to happen. But um, Also, Republicans do have their own um climate legislation now that they're pushing that doesn't set a mission reduction targets per se um. Yeah, tell me more about that. What is the Republican climate agenda? Right? So, I mean the Republican climate agenda is things like innovation

and R and D spending and nuclear and carbon capture. Um. But it's also you know, promoting natural gas and grounds that it has a lower emissions profile than call and if it's produced in the US, it might be cleaner than other countries that don't have stricter environmental standards for it. So um, you know that has been their position and has Republicans put out a plan earlier the summer they're kind of reiterating that, you know, signing plum in control.

This is the direction we're gonna go. So it's it's not nothing, but you know it's it's now a progressive activists either. Yeah, that's right. I know that Senator Barrasso in particular from Wyoming um is really really into carbon capture.

That's something he talks about a lot um and I think that, you know, it sounds like that's the Republican attitude towards this is, let's you know, develop new technology that allows us to keep using fossil fuels, whereas Democrats are, you know, saying, let's we not ourselves off of fossil fuels. That you know, putting it in a nutshell. The difference between the two parties in two right now, that's generally awkward. I think, Um, yeah, I mean they want to keep

using fossil fossil fuels. Um, they say I can do it in a clear away. Carbon capture is expensive and um, you know has had a lot of technical problems. But you know, even the Biden administration is putting a lot of money into it. So it's not just like the hope that's it's on giving all right, Well that was already adder with Bloomberg News talking with us about climate legislation in Congress or the lack there. Ari, Thank you so much for talking. Thanks David, and that's it for

today's episode of Parts per Billion. If you want more environmental news, check us out on Twitter. We used the handle at environment just that environment. I'm at David B. Schultz. That's b is in build back, better, build back? Something who dons? Today's episode of Parts for Billion was produced by myself, David Schultz. Parts for Billion was created by Jessica Combs and Rachel Dagle and is edited by Zack S. Sherwood and Chuck McCutcheon. Our executive producer is Josh Block.

Thanks everyone for listening. Have you ever thought to yourself, how is that legal? Why is that legal? Have you ever seen a big try in the news and wondered what's really happening there? Have you ever pondered the question why are lawyers the way that they are? And how much money do they really make? Anyway? These are the things we live and breathe over it on the Merits.

Bloomberg Laws weekly legal news podcast on the Merits looks into the biggest stories playing out in the legal industry right now, and we feature the finest journalists covering the biggest legal stories from across the Bloomberg Law newsroom. You can hear it wherever fine podcasts are found. Thanks for listening.