America Is the Next Virginia

Often held up as a bellwether for red states shifting blue, Virginia’s as good a test case as any for the changing politics of coal.

National Journal
Lucia Graves
Add to Briefcase
Lucia Graves
May 30, 2014, 6:24 a.m.

No soon­er did word spread that Pres­id­ent Obama would use his ex­ec­ut­ive au­thor­ity to cut car­bon emis­sions from the coun­try’s coal-fired power plants than the politick­ing began.

The U.S. Cham­ber of Com­merce pub­lished a scath­ing re­port. The En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency fired back. Politico doc­u­mented the spat. Lath­er, rinse, re­peat.

With Obama­care’s woes ap­par­ently solved for the mo­ment, and the Benghazi scan­dal feel­ing in­creas­ingly ab­struse, con­ser­vat­ives are look­ing for a new point of con­flag­ra­tion in the run-up to elec­tions this fall — and the new EPA reg­u­la­tions on car­bon emis­sions from ex­ist­ing power plants, to be re­leased on Monday, look like prom­ising fod­der.

The new cli­mate reg­u­la­tions, as New York magazine’s Jonath­an Chait ob­served, of­fer few ob­vi­ous tan­gible selling points for Demo­crats. In­stead, the reg­u­la­tions could mean the loss of jobs and the decim­a­tion of whole towns where live­li­hoods de­pend on the coal in­dustry, as well as high­er en­ergy costs for av­er­age Amer­ic­ans. Re­pub­lic­ans hope to make these con­sequences an al­batross around Demo­crats’ necks this year.

And yet there’s good reas­on to think the dooms­day elect­or­al pre­dic­tions are wrong — that Obama’s coal-fired power-plant reg­u­la­tions, while he’s painted them as a “mor­al ob­lig­a­tion,” are not in fact some sort of polit­ic­al hara-kiri ahead of elec­tions in 2014. To un­der­stand why, con­sider the Vir­gin­ia gov­ernor’s race.

While its re­li­ance on coal for power gen­er­a­tion is lower than some oth­er states, Vir­gin­ia ranks 14th in the coun­try for coal pro­duc­tion. And the sur­round­ing coal in­dustry has tra­di­tion­ally played no small role in shap­ing the state’s polit­ic­al land­scape. That’s chan­ging though, and last year’s gov­ernor’s race between Demo­crat Terry McAul­iffe and Re­pub­lic­an Ken Cuc­cinelli shows why.

The back­drop should sound fa­mil­i­ar: In Septem­ber of 2013, Obama had just rolled out a sep­ar­ate pre­lim­in­ary reg­u­la­tion re­strict­ing green­house-gas emis­sions for fu­ture coal-fired power plants. The back­lash from the coal in­dustry was in­tense, and Cuc­cinelli was quick use it to his ad­vant­age.

“Barack Obama’s war on coal is in­tensi­fy­ing,” said a voice one Cuc­cinelli at­tack ad. “McAul­iffe would side with Obama and kill Vir­gin­ia coal, Vir­gin­ia jobs.”

McAul­iffe re­spon­ded by doub­ling down on his en­vir­on­ment­al po­s­i­tions. He sup­por­ted the reg­u­la­tions, while be­ing care­ful to not ap­pear overly ant­ag­on­ist­ic to­ward coal. “Vir­gin­ia needs to seize the op­por­tun­ity to de­vel­op and de­ploy clean­er en­ergy tech­no­lo­gies that will grow our eco­nomy while pro­tect­ing our en­vir­on­ment,” he wrote in a Politico op-ed. “Just as lim­its were pre­vi­ously set on mer­cury, ar­sen­ic, and lead pol­lu­tion, it’s time to place com­mon­sense lim­its on car­bon pol­lu­tion. And Vir­gini­ans agree with me.”

And so they did. Not only did McAul­iffe win, but he won on en­vir­on­ment­al is­sues. In a Wash­ing­ton Post poll pub­lished in the days lead­ing up to the elec­tion, he held an 8-point lead on en­ergy and en­vir­on­ment­al is­sues spe­cific­ally.

So how did a guy whose third-largest donor was the League of Con­ser­va­tion Voters (and whose fourth-largest was Tom Stey­er), win in a coal state? Vir­gin­ia has a bit of a com­plic­ated re­la­tion­ship with cli­mate polit­ics — Nor­folk, in par­tic­u­lar, is among the U.S. cit­ies most threatened by sea-level rise, ac­cord­ing to the U.S. Geo­lo­gic­al Sur­vey. And McAul­iffe’s statewide ad cam­paign tar­get­ing his op­pon­ent’s cli­mate-change deni­al did not fall on deaf ears. Neither did his full-throated de­fense of noted cli­mate sci­ent­ist Mi­chael Mann, then at the Uni­versity of Vir­gin­ia.

Of course, the situ­ation for na­tion­al Demo­crats isn’t com­pletely ana­log­ous to what McAul­iffe ex­per­i­enced. Obama’s ex­pec­ted car­bon an­nounce­ment doesn’t just con­cern fu­ture power plants: It will have very real con­sequences for ex­ist­ing ones. And his pledge to cut car­bon emis­sions by 20 per­cent could even­tu­ally shut down hun­dreds of coal-fired power plants around the coun­try.

But it’s also, as one Demo­crat­ic strategist noted to The Wash­ing­ton Post‘s Greg Sar­gent, an op­por­tun­ity for Demo­crats to draw a con­trast with a pres­id­ent who’s widely un­pop­u­lar right now. “I’m not sure at the end of the day wheth­er people in those states are likely to say, ‘This shows Demo­crats are try­ing to screw us,’ or, ‘I’m glad my Demo­crat is stand­ing up for me, and he will do oth­er valu­able things.’ Where this really nets out is hard to know. But we’ve been deal­ing with the ba­sic them­at­ics here for a long time.”

Mean­while, McAul­iffe’s suc­cess shows that em­bra­cing cli­mate reg­u­la­tions could be a win­ner for oth­er Demo­crats, too.

What We're Following See More »
TURNING OVER 3,000 RUSSIAN ADS
Facebook to Cooperate with Congress
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
CALLS HIM A “FRIEND OF MINE”
Trump Praises Erdogan
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS
INFORMS CONGRESS RE: EXECUTIVE ORDER
Trump Makes Good on Promise of New North Korea Sanctions
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

President Trump this afternoon announced another round of sanctions on North Korea, calling the regime "a continuing threat." The executive order, which Trump relayed to Congress, bans any ship or plane that has visited North Korea from visiting the United States within 180 days. The order also authorizes sanctions on any financial institution doing business with North Korea, and permits the secretaries of State and the Treasury to sanction any person involved in trading with North Korea, operating a port there, or involved in a variety of industries there.

SUED FOR SIMILAR DESIGN
Ivanka to Court Over $785 Sandals
8 hours ago
THE DETAILS
DOESN’T KNOW WHEN
Trump Says He’ll Visit Puerto Rico
10 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Seated next to Ukrainian President Poroshenko on his final day of meetings at the United Nations, Trump did not say when he might go to Puerto Rico, but spoke solemnly about the destruction to an island he said had been 'absolutely obliterated.'”

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login