Five Takeaways From Obama’s Climate and Energy Budget

White House budget plan escalates the collision between the White House and Capitol Hill Republicans over global warming.

Getty Images
Add to Briefcase
Clare Foran and Ben Geman
Feb. 2, 2015, 6:31 a.m.

Pres­id­ent Obama’s 2016 budget pro­pos­al lays bare the deep di­vi­sions between the White House and as­cend­ant Cap­it­ol Hill Re­pub­lic­ans over cli­mate change, oil-and-gas policy, and much more.

The bulk of the plan will go nowhere on Cap­it­ol Hill, but it’s a use­ful road map to the polit­ic­al battles that will play out for the re­mainder of Obama’s second-term.

As Na­tion­al Journ­al re­ports, the plan would boost fed­er­al spend­ing on green-en­ergy tech­no­lo­gies. Here are five more im­port­ant pieces.

Obama really wants to tackle cli­mate through the tax code

The col­lapse in oil prices is bat­ter­ing the in­dustry, but the White House isn’t let­ting up on his long-pro­posed (and long-re­jec­ted) call to strip bil­lions in tax in­cent­ives for oil-and-gas pro­du­cers. The latest budget plan would strip an es­tim­ated $44 bil­lion in in­dustry tax breaks over a dec­ade. That in­cludes the luc­rat­ive Sec­tion 199 de­duc­tion for do­mest­ic man­u­fac­tur­ing, which Obama doesn’t want the oil in­dustry to be able to claim.

On the flip side, the plan con­tin­ues, des­pite years of head­winds in Con­gress, a ma­jor push to make the tax code much sweeter for the re­new­able-en­ergy sec­tor and de­ploy­ment of its products. It would per­man­ently ex­tend the 30 per­cent in­vest­ment for sol­ar-en­ergy sys­tems, and per­man­ently re­in­state the lapsed wind-en­ergy pro­duc­tion tax cred­it, at a com­bined price tag of $31.5 bil­lion over the next dec­ade alone. Those are two of sev­er­al en­ergy- and cli­mate-re­lated tax pro­pos­als, such as $2 bil­lion in re­fund­able cred­its for in­stalling equip­ment that traps car­bon emis­sions from power plants, and cred­its for heavy-duty al­tern­at­ive-fueled vehicles.

The White House hopes EPA’s power-plant rule is a floor, not a ceil­ing

EPA’s big draft rule to cut power-plant car­bon emis­sions, a pil­lar of Obama’s cli­mate agenda, drew some grumbles from green act­iv­ists who wanted a more am­bi­tious pro­pos­al. The new budget plan sug­gests that Obama feels their pain.

The budget pro­poses a $4 bil­lion Clean Power State In­cent­ive Fund to help states go even fur­ther than the EPA plan, which na­tion­wide would re­quire cuts in car­bon emis­sions from ex­ist­ing power plants that reach 30 per­cent by 2030. It would help states that want to quick­en the pace or total de­gree of pol­lu­tion cuts.

“This fund­ing will en­able states to in­vest in a range of activ­it­ies that com­ple­ment and ad­vance the Clean Power Plan, in­clud­ing ef­forts to ad­dress dis­pro­por­tion­ate im­pacts from en­vir­on­ment­al pol­lu­tion in low-in­come com­munit­ies and sup­port for busi­nesses to ex­pand ef­forts in en­ergy ef­fi­ciency, re­new­able en­ergy, and com­bined heat and power through, for ex­ample, grants and in­vest­ments in much-needed in­fra­struc­ture,” a White House sum­mary states.

Mak­ing the case for cli­mate ac­tion in dol­lars and cents

In an ef­fort to win over crit­ics, the White House makes the case that a fail­ure to ad­dress cli­mate change will make the U.S. bleed money.

The fed­er­al gov­ern­ment has already spent more than $300 bil­lion fix­ing dam­ages from ex­treme weath­er and fires, ac­cord­ing to the White House, and it adds that the costs of cli­mate change go far bey­ond that. The budget warns that cli­mate change will wreck hav­oc across nearly all sec­tors of the eco­nomy, with res­ult­ing costs for health care, na­tion­al se­cur­ity, and prop­erty man­age­ment.

Em­phas­iz­ing the spiral­ing costs of cli­mate in­ac­tion has be­come a pil­lar of the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s mes­sage on cli­mate change fol­low­ing the White House’s re­lease of a re­port last year that spelled out po­ten­tial costs of delay­ing ac­tion on glob­al warm­ing.

With its calls for over­sight, the ad­min­is­tra­tion is set­ting up a clash with oil and gas in­dustry

Obama wants to keep a close eye on oil and gas drilling and is ask­ing the in­dustry to pick up the tab, a pro­pos­al that en­ergy pro­du­cers are sure to say is over­reach. The budget slaps fees on oil and gas pro­duc­tion to pay for “a $10 mil­lion in­crease in fund­ing” for in­spec­tions and over­sight by the Bur­eau of Land Man­age­ment.

En­ergy pro­du­cers are sure to bristle at the pro­pos­al. The in­dustry routinely com­plains that ad­min­is­trat­ive red tape has pushed oil and gas pro­duc­tion on pub­lic lands to a crawl. And Obama’s call for great­er over­sight runs counter to in­dustry de­mands for less fed­er­al in­volve­ment. But the pres­id­ent’s pro­pos­al is guar­an­teed to win praise from en­vir­on­ment­al­ists who have pushed for more in­spec­tions amid con­cerns over crude oil volat­il­ity, spills, and oth­er ac­ci­dents.

White House kicks off a fight with Re­pub­lic­ans over cli­mate fund­ing

Obama wants Con­gress to dole out $500 mil­lion for a con­tro­ver­sial cli­mate fund.

That re­quest will prove an early test of how Re­pub­lic­ans will re­spond to the pres­id­ent’s pledge to set aside a total of $3 bil­lion to fill the cof­fers of the Green Cli­mate Fund, an in­ter­na­tion­al pot of money de­signed to as­sist poor coun­tries ad­apt to the im­pacts of cli­mate change.

Last fall, Obama made a com­mit­ment to pony up the money as part of his second-term cli­mate push. But without Re­pub­lic­an sup­port, that pledge is an empty prom­ise.

The ad­min­is­tra­tion plans to ask for the full $3 bil­lion over the course of sev­er­al years. But Obama is ex­pec­ted to face sig­ni­fic­ant head­winds on Cap­it­ol Hill as he tries to se­cure the funds. And if Re­pub­lic­ans re­fuse Obama’s 2016 ask for the first $500 mil­lion, it could spell trouble for the fu­ture of the U.S. con­tri­bu­tion to the fund, at least as long as the GOP calls the shots on Cap­it­ol Hill.

Pres­id­ent Obama’s 2016 budget pro­pos­al lays bare the deep di­vi­sions between the White House and as­cend­ant Cap­it­ol Hill Re­pub­lic­ans over cli­mate change, oil-and-gas policy, and much more.

The bulk of the plan will go nowhere on Cap­it­ol Hill, but it’s a use­ful road map to the polit­ic­al battles that will play out for the re­mainder of Obama’s second-term.

As Na­tion­al Journ­al re­ports, the plan would boost fed­er­al spend­ing on green-en­ergy tech­no­lo­gies. Here are five more im­port­ant pieces.

Obama really wants to tackle cli­mate through the tax code

The col­lapse in oil prices is bat­ter­ing the in­dustry, but the White House isn’t let­ting up on his long-pro­posed (and long-re­jec­ted) call to strip bil­lions in tax in­cent­ives for oil-and-gas pro­du­cers. The latest budget plan would strip an es­tim­ated $44 bil­lion in in­dustry tax breaks over a dec­ade. That in­cludes the luc­rat­ive Sec­tion 199 de­duc­tion for do­mest­ic man­u­fac­tur­ing, which Obama doesn’t want the oil in­dustry to be able to claim.

On the flip side, the plan con­tin­ues, des­pite years of head­winds in Con­gress, a ma­jor push to make the tax code much sweeter for the re­new­able-en­ergy sec­tor and de­ploy­ment of its products. It would per­man­ently ex­tend the 30 per­cent in­vest­ment for sol­ar-en­ergy sys­tems, and per­man­ently re­in­state the lapsed wind-en­ergy pro­duc­tion tax cred­it, at a com­bined price tag of $31.5 bil­lion over the next dec­ade alone. Those are two of sev­er­al en­ergy- and cli­mate-re­lated tax pro­pos­als, such as $2 bil­lion in re­fund­able cred­its for in­stalling equip­ment that traps car­bon emis­sions from power plants, and cred­its for heavy-duty al­tern­at­ive-fueled vehicles.

The White House hopes EPA’s power-plant rule is a floor, not a ceil­ing

EPA’s big draft rule to cut power-plant car­bon emis­sions, a pil­lar of Obama’s cli­mate agenda, drew some grumbles from green act­iv­ists who wanted a more am­bi­tious pro­pos­al. The new budget plan sug­gests that Obama feels their pain.

The budget pro­poses a $4 bil­lion Clean Power State In­cent­ive Fund to help states go even fur­ther than the EPA plan, which na­tion­wide would re­quire cuts in car­bon emis­sions from ex­ist­ing power plants that reach 30 per­cent by 2030. It would help states that want to quick­en the pace or total de­gree of pol­lu­tion cuts.

“This fund­ing will en­able states to in­vest in a range of activ­it­ies that com­ple­ment and ad­vance the Clean Power Plan, in­clud­ing ef­forts to ad­dress dis­pro­por­tion­ate im­pacts from en­vir­on­ment­al pol­lu­tion in low-in­come com­munit­ies and sup­port for busi­nesses to ex­pand ef­forts in en­ergy ef­fi­ciency, re­new­able en­ergy, and com­bined heat and power through, for ex­ample, grants and in­vest­ments in much-needed in­fra­struc­ture,” a White House sum­mary states.

Mak­ing the case for cli­mate ac­tion in dol­lars and cents

In an ef­fort to win over crit­ics, the White House makes the case that a fail­ure to ad­dress cli­mate change will make the U.S. bleed money.

The fed­er­al gov­ern­ment has already spent more than $300 bil­lion fix­ing dam­ages from ex­treme weath­er and fires, ac­cord­ing to the White House, and it adds that the costs of cli­mate change go far bey­ond that. The budget warns that cli­mate change will wreck hav­oc across nearly all sec­tors of the eco­nomy, with res­ult­ing costs for health care, na­tion­al se­cur­ity, and prop­erty man­age­ment.

Em­phas­iz­ing the spiral­ing costs of cli­mate in­ac­tion has be­come a pil­lar of the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s mes­sage on cli­mate change fol­low­ing the White House’s re­lease of a re­port last year that spelled out po­ten­tial costs of delay­ing ac­tion on glob­al warm­ing.

With its calls for over­sight, the ad­min­is­tra­tion is set­ting up a clash with oil and gas in­dustry

Obama wants to keep a close eye on oil and gas drilling and is ask­ing the in­dustry to pick up the tab, a pro­pos­al that en­ergy pro­du­cers are sure to say is over­reach. The budget slaps fees on oil and gas pro­duc­tion to pay for “a $10 mil­lion in­crease in fund­ing” for in­spec­tions and over­sight by the Bur­eau of Land Man­age­ment.

En­ergy pro­du­cers are sure to bristle at the pro­pos­al. The in­dustry routinely com­plains that ad­min­is­trat­ive red tape has pushed oil and gas pro­duc­tion on pub­lic lands to a crawl. And Obama’s call for great­er over­sight runs counter to in­dustry de­mands for less fed­er­al in­volve­ment. But the pres­id­ent’s pro­pos­al is guar­an­teed to win praise from en­vir­on­ment­al­ists who have pushed for more in­spec­tions amid con­cerns over crude oil volat­il­ity, spills, and oth­er ac­ci­dents.

White House kicks off a fight with Re­pub­lic­ans over cli­mate fund­ing

Obama wants Con­gress to dole out $500 mil­lion for a con­tro­ver­sial cli­mate fund.

That re­quest will prove an early test of how Re­pub­lic­ans will re­spond to the pres­id­ent’s pledge to set aside a total of $3 bil­lion to fill the cof­fers of the Green Cli­mate Fund, an in­ter­na­tion­al pot of money de­signed to as­sist poor coun­tries ad­apt to the im­pacts of cli­mate change.

Last fall, Obama made a com­mit­ment to pony up the money as part of his second-term cli­mate push. But without Re­pub­lic­an sup­port, that pledge is an empty prom­ise.

The ad­min­is­tra­tion plans to ask for the full $3 bil­lion over the course of sev­er­al years. But Obama is ex­pec­ted to face sig­ni­fic­ant head­winds on Cap­it­ol Hill as he tries to se­cure the funds. And if Re­pub­lic­ans re­fuse Obama’s 2016 ask for the first $500 mil­lion, it could spell trouble for the fu­ture of the U.S. con­tri­bu­tion to the fund, at least as long as the GOP calls the shots on Cap­it­ol Hill.

×