Conservative climate groups are plotting to prove that the climate movement isn’t completely dead under the incoming Congress and Trump administration. It will just look very different than it does now.
The groups represent a serious realignment from the climate-focused groups that currently have the Biden administration’s ear. Some of these conservative organizations oppose environmental regulations on the grounds that they slow green energy development. Others want to protect regulations for clean air, clean water and the rights of hunters and sportsmen.
For the most part, these groups are all in on nuclear energy, permitting reform and tax incentives for technologies like advanced geothermal and carbon capture. And though many of them are involved in advocating for emissions-free forms of energy, almost none use the phrase “climate change” with any regularity.
They all think they can get Donald Trump’s attention.
“We’re actually really excited about this political scenario,” said Luke Bolar, a leader at ClearPath, a group that advocates for innovative technologies to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Traditional environmental organizations, like Earthjustice, are staffing up for an all-out legal war to protect environmental regulations. Coalitions of renewable energy companies are finding new ways to pitch the tax incentives to Republicans interested in national security. Every environmental lawyer seems to be prepping for financial and regulatory uncertainty.
But these conservative climate groups, like C3 Solutions, the Alliance for Market Solutions and ConservAmerica, feel there’s finally the space for them to be heard.
“We have a better chance of making a difference in the comment process than we would in a Biden administration, I think that’s kind of a given,” said Daren Bakst, the director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment.
The list of potentially influential players is robust, even though few of these organizations have commanded much influence over the last four years of climate policy transformation. It includes traditional think tanks, like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and R Street. But also organizations, like the American Conservation Coalition, which is focused on organizing conservative youth around nuclear power, free markets and permitting reform. Some of these groups even receive funding from the nonprofits that direct funds to the liberal organizations.
In conversations with NOTUS, these organizations all identified permitting reform to allow new projects for innovative technologies like carbon capture, new types of nuclear reactors and advanced geothermal as their main priority under the Trump administration. They want changes to how the National Environmental Policy Act is implemented.
“I think it’s the biggest barrier to implementing more clean energy generation and traditional generation, and we’re going to need both,” said Nick Loris, the executive vice president of policy at C3 Solutions. Loris, alongside Bolar, expressed hope that Democrats in Congress would see the potential power of permitting reform for the clean energy markets and embrace the effort to finish a permitting bill in the lame duck, spearheaded by Sen. Joe Manchin and Sen. John Barrasso.
And assuming some form of permitting reform does happen, Loris hopes that further changes to the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act to limit environmental permitting requirements will follow with the new Congress.
“I think no matter what there will need to be a lot of attention on permitting reform in the new year. What can the administration do administratively?” Bolar said. “But regardless of what they can do or will do, it’s still better to statutorily make these permitting reforms, so that it’s not a change from one admin to another.”
Philip Rossetti, the energy senior fellow at R Street and a former climate-focused Hill staffer, said the same, as did Danielle Franz, the CEO of the American Conservation Coalition.
For Franz, the other big priority is a resurgence of nuclear power, which is the same focus shared by many members of the GOP in Congress and Chris Wright, Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Energy.
Franz isn’t the only one fixated on nuclear. Like permitting, a nuclear resurgence is a popular talking point across the board. Bolar’s ClearPath has been working for months on legislative language for government-run cost-overrun insurance for new nuclear projects (an expensive but possibly necessary prospect for new power plants). And last week, Sen. James Risch introduced such a bill that ClearPath plans to advocate for in the next Congress.
In general, the conservative climate organizations are mostly focused on encouraging energy innovation, not just in nuclear.
“You saw that massive infusion of capital in the DOE from this current administration,” Bolar said. “I think you will actually see some continuity, especially in nuclear, carbon capture and storage spaces, and continuing to build on what has been started.”
Loris and Rossetti both described a wonky portion of the tax code as a priority for that innovation incubation: A provision that would let start-ups deduct their research and design costs from their taxes the year they are incurred, instead of spread out over a long period of time. The 2017 Trump tax bill introduced this provision but made it temporary for budget scoring reasons, and Loris said that energy companies have been pushing for it to return.
“If we’re having tax policy, I’m less of a fan of some of the targeted tax credit for mature technologies, and more favorable to these immediate expensing provisions,” he said. “That’s where the conversations about the IRA are going to come into play, where do you find the offsets?”
The Inflation Reduction Act is where there is significantly less agreement. Conservative climate groups all wanted to see it change one way or another, but the desires range from minor tweaks to a complete repeal. The division in this area reflects the likely divisions in Congress: Many Republican districts have received significant investments due to the IRA, many members of Congress don’t agree on the areas that need changing and coalitions of companies are already arranging meetings on the Hill to pitch their case for saving whatever part of the bill most benefits them.
“The issue with the wind and solar and legacy nuclear being eligible for the IRA subsidies, you don’t get a lot of climate benefit out of that. We can pare back some of these to maybe increase focus on some of the innovation priorities and have an overall lower cost package,” Rossetti said, suggesting that the IRA could be more effective while costing less.
By contrast, Bakst at CEI is ready to see Republicans ditch the whole package.
“We need to dismantle the IRA subsidies. Every one of them, gone,” he said. “The subsidies are market distorting, they hurt innovation. The whole point of subsidies is to encourage somebody to do something that they otherwise wouldn’t do.”
—
Anna Kramer is a reporter at NOTUS.