Energy policy disputes in the 2016 elections

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 20:22, 10 February 2023 by Mandy Gillip (contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


ENERGY POLICY-Masthead.png

Ballotpedia's
Election Analysis
FEDERAL
Battleground elections:
U.S. Senate • U.S. House
STATE
State legislatures • Gubernatorial
State Attorney General
LOCAL
Municipal • School boards
Local courts • Local measures
PUBLIC POLICY
Budget • Education • Election • Energy • Healthcare • Environment
Terms and Concepts
Partisan Risk

Energy policy was addressed in federal, state, and local races across the nation in 2016.

The outcome of the 2016 elections stood to impact federal energy policy on issues such as oil, coal, and natural gas production; regulation of carbon dioxide emissions; renewable energy; and nuclear power.

Energy policy debates also occurred on the state and local levels, where candidates addressed issues like fracking bans and climate change pacts.

In general, Democrats prioritized increasing renewable energy use, while Republicans prioritized energy sources they considered to be more reliable and affordable.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The regulation of oil and gas pipelines, oil and natural gas extraction on federal land, and offshore oil and gas drilling was debated in state and federal races.
  • States and localities debated the regulation of fracking.


    • This page summarizes some of the key energy policy issues debated in 2016, as well as the stances of political parties and presidential candidates on those issues. In addition, this page identifies relevant state and local ballot measures. Click on the tabs below to learn more.

    Major issues

    Timeline

    Clean Power Plan

    The Clean Power Plan, also known as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 111(d) rule, was a plan to expand the scope of the Clean Air Act in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. The rule was designed to reduce CO2 emissions from the utility power sector by 32% by 2030 (from 2005 emission levels) with state-specific goals that reflected the type of power plants in the state as well as the federally mandated performance rates for those power plants. The plan represented the first-ever federal regulations on CO2 emissions from existing power plants. As proposed, the plan would require states to obtain approval from the EPA for their plans to achieve emissions goals set by the agency. The plan was first proposed by the EPA in June 2014, and the final version was announced by President Barack Obama (D) on August 3, 2015. On February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily halted the rule from being implemented pending judicial review of the plan's legal merits in federal court.[1][2]

    The plan was an EPA administrative action based on the agency's interpretation of the Clean Air Act. Critics questioned the authority of the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from stationary sources like power plants based on different versions of the law. As of November 2016, utilities, coal miners, and 27 states had sued the federal government over the plan. Opponents argued that the plan was unconstitutional and violated states' rights to regulate the electricity industry in their states. Supporters of the rule, including 18 states, argued that the rule was a necessary measure to reduce the potential impact of carbon emissions and greenhouse gases on global warming and subsequent changes in the climate.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

    The map below shows each state's stance as of November 2016. States in light purple opposed the rule, states in dark purple supported the rule, and states in gray had not joined a lawsuit. States that were counted as opposing the plan were listed as such because that state either filed a lawsuit or joined a lawsuit against the plan. Supporting states were those that joined a lawsuit or filed their own suit supporting the implementation of the rule.[11]

    Opposition and support for the Clean Power Plan
    States colored light purple opposed the rule, states colored dark purple supported the rule, and states in gray had not joined a lawsuit as of November 2016.

    New Source Performance Standards, section 111(b)

    In October 2015, the EPA released the final version of a rule that set CO2 emissions standards for new, modified, and reconstructed electricity generating units (EGUs). Known as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), the rule was part of the EPA's interpretation of section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act and was intended to work in tandem with the section 111(d) rule (Clean Power Plan) for power plant emissions. The Clean Air Act required performance standards for new sources of air pollutants before standards could be set for existing sources. Thus, the Clean Power Plan rested on the New Source Performance Standards.[12][13][14]

    Watch Ballotpedia's webinar on energy policy conflicts in the 2016 election

    One of the main contentions over the 111(b) rule revolved around carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. CCS technology captures the carbon emitted from power plants and stores it in underground caves and other formations. The EPA considered CCS technology the best system of emission reductions (BSER) for new coal-fired power plants at the time. Critics argued, however, that CCS could not be the best system of emission reduction because the technology had not been sufficiently developed and was too expensive and complex to implement. One of the power plants that the EPA said was a model for the feasibility of CCS technology was a coal-fired power plant in Kemper County, Mississippi. The New York Times profiled the plant in July 2016 and found the plant was "more than two years behind schedule and more than $4 billion over its initial budget, $2.4 billion, and it is still not operational." The EPA cited another power plant in Canada as proof that the technology was feasible, but commenters responded that this plant was too small and the technology could not be scaled up.[12][13][14][15][16][17]

    Climate change

    The first piece of enacted federal legislation to address human-made climate change was the National Climate Program Act, introduced in 1977 by Rep. George Brown (D-Calif.). Signed into law on September 17, 1978, by President Jimmy Carter (D), the bill established a National Climate Program Office within the U.S. Department of Commerce. The office was charged with assessing the potential effects of climate change, including natural and man-made climate change. The bill also called for creating coordinated federal plans to address climate change every five years. Between 1977 and March 2016, there were 1,519 bills and 185 resolutions mentioning climate change introduced in Congress.[18]

    The graphic in this section shows the makeup of Congress on the left (divided up by party affiliation) and legislation mentioning climate change on the right. The 50 percent marker in the partisan graph makes it possible to see the sessions of Congress in which more than half of Congress was a member of the same party. Legislation mentioning climate change is outlined in yellow. The number of bills mentioning climate change spiked during the 2007-2008 session (110th Congress) and the 2009-2010 session (111th Congress) when more than half of all members of Congress were Democrats.[19]

    Climate change legislation and the partisan makeup of Congress

    Pipelines

    Pipelines are used to transport oil, natural gas, and petroleum products from wells to consumers or oil refineries. According to a 2014 Congressional Research Service report, pipelines and oceangoing oil tankers accounted for almost 90 percent of all crude oil movement in 2013.[20] In 2016, candidates debated the environmental and human health impacts of pipelines.

    Certain proposed pipelines, such as the Constitution Pipeline in the Northeast, became microcosms for the larger debate about fossil fuel use. Permitting for the Constitution Pipeline, a 124-mile long pipeline that would have transported natural gas from Pennsylvania to Schoharie County, New York, was halted by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in April 2016 after the administration delayed a decision on the pipeline for over two years. Because the pipeline would have crossed several large bodies of water, the company building the pipeline needed several water quality permits from the state of New York. According to the Cuomo administration, the water quality permit application did not "provide sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with New York State water quality standards." After the permit denial was announced, the William Company stated that it was considering legal action to try to reverse the decision.[21]

    The same week that the Constitution Pipeline was rejected, plans to build another natural gas pipeline, the Northeast Energy Direct pipeline, were terminated by the company planning to build it, Kinder Morgan. According to Kinder Morgan, the company opted not to continue permitting for the pipeline due to the low price of natural gas and an uncertain regulatory atmosphere. Environmentalists in the New York region saw the discontinuation of these two pipelines as a victory and a sign of their growing influence.[22]

    Dakota Access pipeline

    The Dakota Access pipeline is an approximately 1,172-mile crude oil pipeline carrying around 470,000 barrels of oil a day from North Dakota to Illinois. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe opposed the construction of the pipeline, arguing that it "[threatened] the Tribe's environmental and economic well-being, and would damage and destroy sites of great historic, religious, and cultural significance to the Tribe." According to CNN, the company behind the pipeline, Dakota Access, argued that the pipeline was the "safest, most cost-effective and environmentally responsible way to move crude oil" and that the project would help the United States become more energy independent.[23][24][25][26][27][28]

    The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed a complaint in federal court asking for an injunction against the pipeline after accusing Dakota Access of intentionally destroying new archeological artifacts. Judge James Boasberg denied the injunction on September 9, 2016. In his ruling, Boasberg criticized the pipeline permitting process but concluded that an injunction was not warranted. In response to the court ruling, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released a joint press release stating that the DOJ would pursue nationwide reforms to address "tribal input into infrastructure-related reviews" and that the Army Corps would not authorize the pipeline's construction on Corps lands.[29][26][24][25][23]

    On October 5, 2016, federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed a request from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to block construction along a section of the pipeline. On October 9, the court lifted the injunction against construction on the pipeline, which allowed the project to move forward.[30]

    Fracking

    In 2016, the debate over fracking (a method used to extract natural gas and oil from land) focused on regulation. With several fracking bans on local ballots across the country, debate on the topic continued within state legislatures. Legislation calling for fracking bans decreased compared to previous years, while legislation regulating the disposal of fracking waste water increased.[31]

    Fracking on federal land

    On March 20, 2015, the Obama administration released a new ruling that governed fracking on federal land. Two groups, the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance, filed suit almost immediately following the release of the new rule. Twenty-seven Senate Republicans filed a bill that would block the regulations from taking effect. As of May 2015, four states had challenged the new rule in court: Colorado, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. In June 2016, U.S. District Court for Wyoming Judge Scott W. Skavdahl struck down the Obama administration's rule. In striking down the rule, Judge Skavdahl stated that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 prevented fracking from being regulated by the federal government. Following the court's decision, Obama White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the administration would continue to defend the ruling in court. As of November 2016, the case remained in federal court, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management said it would process oil and gas drilling permits as prescribed by existing regulations.[32][33][34][35][36]

    As of 2016, federal land policy allowed oil and natural gas extraction on some federal lands. Roughly 26% of the land owned by the federal government (around 166 million acres) could be leased to private individuals and companies for energy development, including drilling for crude oil and natural gas, solar energy, and geothermal energy. In fiscal year 2014, around 148.8 billion barrels of oil were produced on federal land; more than 2,499,000 million cubic feet of natural gas was produced on federal land in fiscal year 2014.[37]

    Congressional Republicans and industry-affiliated energy groups have supported increased oil and natural gas production on federal lands (especially in oil and natural gas-rich Western states such as Alaska and Wyoming). Some Senate Republicans proposed legislation to allow state governments more control over energy production on federal land within those states' borders. Supporters also argued that existing regulations were sufficient to protect human health and the environment.[38][39]

    Congressional Democrats, environmental organizations, and conservation groups opposed increased oil and natural gas production on federal lands, while some supported stronger environmental regulations. Two House Democrats proposed legislation to ban fracking on all federal lands, citing environmental concerns such as water contamination and earthquakes.[40][41][42]

    Offshore drilling

    In 2016, the Obama administration withdrew a plan to allow oil and gas extraction off the southeastern Atlantic Coast. If the proposal had been implemented, it would have been the first time drilling was authorized off the coasts of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. According to The New York Times, the proposal divided coastal and landlocked residents, with the former group opposed to drilling for environmental and viewing reasons and the latter group supporting the drilling in hopes of economic growth and energy independence. To some degree, the division fell along regional and not political lines, with 106 coastal towns, 80 legislators, and 1,000 businesses opposed to the drilling plan. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior, which wrote the plan, as much as 3.3 billion barrels of oil and 31.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas could be recovered from the proposed drilling area.[43]

    On May 31, 2016, two of the agencies responsible for regulating offshore drilling released an environmental assessment ruling that fracking off the coast of California posed no significant environmental effects. This ruling lifted a moratorium on fracking off the coast of Santa Barbara that was put into place following a legal settlement between the Center for Biological Diversity and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) in January 2016. The Center for Biological Diversity had filed a lawsuit challenging what it called the "federal government’s rubber-stamping of fracking permits without any analysis of threats to wildlife and ocean ecosystems."[44][45] The full environmental report is available here.


    National races

    Democratic Party Democratic Party

    See also: The Democratic Party Platform and DNC Platform Committees, 2016

    The Democratic Party adopted its 2016 platform at the Democratic National Convention in July 2016.[46]

    Republican Party Republican Party

    See also: The Republican Platform and RNC Platform Committee, 2016

    The Republican Party officially adopted its 2016 platform at the Republican National Convention in July 2016.[48]

    Libertarian Party Libertarian Party

    See also: The Libertarian Party platform

    The Libertarian Party adopted its 2016 platform at the Libertarian National Convention in May 2016.

    Green Party Green Party

    See also: The Green Party platform

    The Green Party National Committee approved its platform in August 2016.

    Presidential candidates' stances on energy

    Democratic Party Hillary Clinton

    See also: Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016
    caption
    Energy development
    • In a December 17, 2015, radio interview with South Carolina radio station WGCV-AM, Hillary Clinton said that she was doubtful of the need to drill for oil or gas off the eastern seaboard of the U.S. She said, “I am very skeptical about the need or desire for us to pursue offshore drilling off the coast of South Carolina, and frankly off the coast of other southeast states.”[51]
    Climate change
    • Politico reported on August 11, 2016, that Hillary Clinton had assembled an advisory team on climate change of more than 100 experts, including former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D), and many former Obama administration officials.[52]
    • According to The Hill, “Clinton is open to working with lawmakers on a tax on carbon dioxide emissions if Congress wants it.” On July 26, 2016, Clinton’s energy advisor Trevor Houser said, “Democrats believe that climate change is too important to wait for climate deniers in Congress to start listening to science. And while it’s always important to remain open to a conversation about how to address this issue with Congress, we need a plan that we can implement day one, because it’s too important to wait, and we need to focus on those things as well.”[53]
    • Clinton, on January 18, 2016, signed a pledge to power at least half of the nation's energy needs with renewable sources by 2030. The pledge was devised by NextGen Climate, a San Francisco-based environmental advocacy organization that was founded by philanthropist, environmental activist, and Democratic donor Tom Steyer in 2013. The group is affiliated with NextGen Climate Action, a super PAC.[54]
    • In response to the Paris Agreement adopted on December 12, 2015, Clinton released the following statement, in part: “I applaud President Obama, Secretary Kerry and our negotiating team for helping deliver a new, ambitious international climate agreement in Paris. This is an historic step forward in meeting one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century—the global crisis of climate change. … We cannot afford to be slowed by the climate skeptics or deterred by the defeatists who doubt America’s ability to meet this challenge.”[55]
    • Clinton’s campaign announced on November 11, 2015, a $30 billion plan to benefit coal communities as the nation’s electric grid shifts to cleaner energy sources, Time reported. Clinton’s plan would invest in building roads, bridges, water systems, and airports in Appalachia and other coal areas, expand broadband access, and increase public investment in research and development. She would expand a “major public works project,” according to a campaign white paper, aimed at producing clean energy through hydro power on federal lands. As president, Clinton would also find ways to replace local revenue for public schools lost when coal production facilities disappear, ensuring that workers at bankrupt coal companies keep their benefits. She would also award grants for efficient housing upgrades and community health centers in coal communities.[56]
    • Clinton announced her climate change policy on July 26, 2015. She focused on two national goals: installing more than 500 million solar panels across the country by the end of her first term and generating enough renewable energy to power every home in 10 years. In a video released by her campaign promoting her plan, Clinton attacked Republican presidential candidates who “still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change. Who would rather remind us they’re not scientists than listen to those who are.”[57][58]
      • After Clinton unveiled part of her climate change policy, she received backlash for using a private jet. On July 28, 2015, an aide to Clinton announced that her campaign would be carbon neutral. "We'll be offsetting the carbon footprint of the campaign and that includes travel," the aide said. Clinton previously pledged to run a carbon neutral campaign in 2008.[59]
    • In December 2014, Clinton said, “The science of climate change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers may say, sea levels are rising, ice caps are melting, storms, droughts and wildfires are wreaking havoc.”[60]
    • During the 2008 presidential campaign, Clinton expressed her support for cap and trade.[61]
    Keystone XL Pipeline
    • Hillary Clinton announced on September 22, 2015, that she opposed the Keystone XL pipeline. “I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone pipeline as what I believe it is -- a distraction from important work we have to do on climate change,” Clinton said. She continued, “And unfortunately from my perspective, one that interferes with our ability to move forward with all the other issues. Therefore I oppose it.” The announcement spurred a number of responses from other candidates via Twitter.[62][63]
    • Clinton declined to take a position on the Keystone XL pipeline on July 27, 2015, citing her involvement in evaluating the project as the reason for her silence. “No other presidential candidate was secretary of state when this process started, and I put together a very thorough deliberative evidence-based process to evaluate the environmental impact and other considerations of Keystone. As such, I know there is a very careful evaluation continuing and that the final decision is pending to be made by Secretary Kerry and President Obama. Very simply, the evaluation determines whether this pipeline is in our nation’s interest and I’m confident that the pipeline impacts on global greenhouse gas emissions will be a major factor in that decisions, as the president has said. So I will refrain from commenting because I had a leading role in getting that process started and I think we have to let it run its course,” Clinton said.[64]
    Fracking
    • During the ninth Democratic debate held in Brooklyn, New York, on April 14, 2016, Hillary Clinton was asked whether she had changed her opinion on fracking. Clinton responded, “No, well, I don’t think I’ve changed my view on what we need to do to go from where we are, where the world is heavily dependent on coal and oil, but principally coal, to where we need to be, which is clean renewable energy, and one of the bridge fuels is natural gas. And so for both economic and environmental and strategic reasons, it was American policy to try to help countries get out from under the constant use of coal, building coal plants all the time, also to get out from under, especially if they were in Europe, the pressure from Russia, which has been incredibly intense. So we did say natural gas is a bridge. We want to cross that bridge as quickly as possible, because in order to deal with climate change, we have got to move as rapidly as we can. That’s why I’ve set big goals. I want to see us deploy a half a billion more solar panels by the end of my first term and enough clean energy to provide electricity to every home in America within 10 years. So I have big, bold goals, but I know in order to get from where we are, where the world is still burning way too much coal, where the world is still too intimidated by countries and providers like Russia, we have got to make a very firm but decisive move in the direction of clean energy.”[65]
    • At the seventh Democratic debate on March 6, 2016, Clinton discussed her stance on fracking. She said, “You know, I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, number one. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it — number three — unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using. So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated. So first, we’ve got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking unless conditions like the ones that I just mentioned are met.”[66]
    • Clinton tweeted on August 18, 2015, her disapproval of Shell being permitted to explore the Arctic for oil. “The Arctic is a unique treasure. Given what we know, it's not worth the risk of drilling,” she wrote.[67]
    • At the National Clean Energy Summit, Clinton spoke about the benefits of natural gas and the possibility of exporting it. She also expressed concerns about methane leaks and the need to regulate fracking.[68]
    Environmental conservation
    • In 2003, Clinton voted for an amendment which sought to prevent "consideration of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."[70]

    Republican Party Donald Trump

    See also: Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016
    caption
    • In a speech in Pennsylvania on September 22, 2016, Trump outlined his energy policies. “I’m going to lift the restrictions on American energy and allow this wealth to pour into our communities including right here in the state of Pennsylvania. We will end the war on coal and on miners,” said Trump to attendees of the 2016 Shale Insight Conference, a gathering of natural gas producers. He said, “Billions of dollars in private infrastructure investment have been lost to the Obama-Clinton restriction agenda. … We will streamline the permitting process for all energy infrastructure projects, including the billions of dollars in projects held up by President Obama -– creating countless more jobs in the process.” Trump further outlined that he would roll back Obama's climate change plans, promote oil and gas drilling on federal lands, and promote the construction of oil and gas pipelines.[71]
    • During a rally in Fresno, California, on May 27, 2016, Donald Trump said that there was no drought in the state and that officials were prioritizing an endangered fish, the Delta smelt, with its water restrictions. “We’re going to solve your water problem. You have a water problem that is so insane. It is so ridiculous where they’re taking the water and shoving it out to sea,” he said.[72]
      • While campaigning in California on Sunday, Bernie Sanders challenged Trump’s position with sarcasm. “You see, we don't fully appreciate the genius of Donald Trump, who knows more than all the people of California, knows more than all the scientists," he said.[73]
    • Donald Trump's campaign asked U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) to draft a white paper on energy policy. The Huffington Post reported on May 13, 2016, that Cramer “would emphasize the dangers of foreign ownership of U.S. energy assets, burdensome taxes, and over-regulation” in his policy paper. Cramer has previously stated that believes the planet is cooling rather than warming.[74]
    • On August 24, 2012, Trump tweeted that wind turbines were "an environmental & aesthetic disaster."[75]
    • Trump wrote in his 2011 book, Time to Get Tough, that the Marcellus Shale was "one of the largest mother lodes of natural gas" and should be used to buy "more time to innovate and develop newer, more efficient, cleaner, and cheaper forms of energy."[76]
    • In a 2011 interview on energy production, Trump expressed incredulity that the United States was not more aggressively using natural gas and drilling.[77]
    Climate change
    • The Trump campaign released a statement on the Paris Climate Accord after it was announced on October 5, 2016, that the international climate change deal would go into effect on November 4, 2016. The Trump campaign called it a “bad deal” that would “impose enormous costs on American households through higher electricity prices and higher taxes.” The statement went on to say, "As our nation considers these issues, Mr. Trump and Gov. Pence appreciate that many scientists are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions. We need America's scientists to continue studying the scientific issues but without political agendas getting in the way. We also need to be vigilant to defend the interests of the American people in any efforts taken on this front."[78]
    • Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, said on September 27, 2016, that Trump believes “global warming is naturally occurring” and humans are not the cause.[79]
    • Responding to a questionnaire published in Scientific American on September 13, 2016, Trump said, “There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of 'climate change.' Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering diseases around the world like malaria. Perhaps we should focus on efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world population. Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels. We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous.”[80]
    • Trump delivered a speech on energy production at an oil and natural gas conference in North Dakota on May 26, 2016. Through the use of untapped domestic oil and gas reserves, Trump said that he would make the U.S. independent from foreign oil providers. If elected, he also pledged to take the following actions in his first 100 days in office: rescind the Climate Action Plan and Waters of the U.S. rule, support the renewal of the Keystone XL Pipeline project, cancel the Paris Climate Agreement, and reform the regulatory environment. The merit of future regulations, Trump said, would be determined by asking, “Is this regulation good for the American worker?”[81][82][83]
    • Politico reported on May 23, 2016, that Trump filed an application to construct a sea wall to protect one of his golf course properties in Ireland from “global warming and its effects.” Trump previously called climate change “a total hoax.”[84]
    Fracking
    • While campaigning in Colorado Springs, Colo., on July 29, 2016, reporter Brandon Rittiman asked Trump about a fracking ballot measure that would change the state constitution to allow municipalities to ban oil and gas exploration. "Well, I’m in favor of fracking, but I think that voters should have a big say in it,” Trump told the reporter. “I mean, there’s some areas, maybe, they don’t want to have fracking. And I think if the voters are voting for it, that’s up to them… If a municipality or a state wants to ban fracking, I can understand that.” Trump's response put him on the side of environmental activists. The GOP is typically aligned with the energy industry, but Trump's statement on the fracking measure aligns with Hillary Clinton's support of allowing states and cities to determine whether to permit fracking.[85]
    Keystone XL Pipeline
    • In an interview with Greta Van Sustern on FOX News in January 2012, Trump called President Barack Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline "disgraceful." Trump added, "Frankly, we don't need Canada. We should just be able to drill our own oil. As long as it's there we certainly should have approved it. It was jobs and cheaper oil. It's just absolutely incredible. I guess President Obama took care of the environmentalists, but it is absolutely terrible. And it is not an environmental problem at all in any way, shape, or form."[86]


    Libertarian Party Gary Johnson

    See also: Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016
    caption
    • In a speech on September 14, 2016, Johnson voiced his support for the EPA, saying, “Government I think has a fundamental responsibility to protect us against those that would do us harm, in this case pollution. And I support the EPA.”[87]
    • On his campaign website, Johnson described his approach to environmental policy: "We need to stand firm to protect our environment for our future generations, especially those designated areas of protection like our National Parks. Consistent with that responsibility, the proper role of government is to enforce reasonable environmental protections. Governor Johnson did that as Governor, and would do so as President. Governor Johnson believes the Environmental Protection Agency, when focused on its true mission, plays an important role in keeping the environment and citizens safe. Johnson does not, however, believe the government should be engaging in social and economic engineering for the purpose of creating winners and losers in what should be a robust free market. Preventing a polluter from harming our water or air is one thing. Having politicians in Washington, D.C., acting on behalf of high powered lobbyists, determine the future of clean energy innovation is another. ... In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests. Too often, when Washington, D.C. gets involved, the winners are those with the political clout to write the rules of the game, and the losers are the people and businesses actually trying to innovate. ... Governors Johnson and Weld strongly believe that the federal government should prevent future harm by focusing on regulations that protect us from real harm, rather than needlessly costing American jobs and freedom in order to pursue a political agenda."[88]
    • In a video posted to YouTube in March 2012, Gary Johnson said he opposed the Keystone XL pipeline only if eminent domain were necessary to establish it. "If the Keystone pipeline is an issue of eminent domain – no, the government should not get involved or I'd have to really have a look at that. If it's rules and regulations that we're talking about, then, yes, rules and regulations can make and should make and I would support making the Keystone XL pipeline happen."[89]
    • Commenting on the balance between environmental protection and energy production on his 2012 presidential campaign website, Johnson wrote, "When it comes to the environment, the Federal government’s responsibility is no different than in other aspects of our lives. It is simply to protect us from those who would do us harm and damage our property. There are bad actors who would pollute our water supplies and our air if allowed to do so, and we must have laws and regulations to protect innocent Americans from the harm those bad actors would do. However, common sense must prevail, and the costs of all regulations must be weighed against the benefits. The government should simply stay out of the business of trying to promote or 'manage' energy development. The marketplace will meet our energy needs in the most economical and efficient manner possible – if government will stay out of the way."[90]
    • In September 2012, Johnson praised the Environmental Protection Agency, writing, "The EPA protects us against those that would pollute, and without them a lot more polluters would be allowed to pollute."[91]
    • Johnson said he favored nuclear power in an August 2011 interview.[92]
    Climate change
    • In an interview with the Washington Examiner on July 10, 2016, Johnson commented on the EPA and coal industry, saying, "The role, as far as the Environmental Protection Agency, is to identify health or safety concerns with regard to emissions. I think right now what is happening with climate change, what is happening with the coal industry, is that coal has been bankrupted. It has been bankrupted by the free market. As low as the price of coal is today, natural gas is even lower. So, no new coal plants are going to be built ... Those that exist now are being grandfathered in [under the EPA regulations]. So, coal, the number one contributor to CO2 emissions in the world, is dead. Coal is dead. And the free market did it because we, as consumers, are demanding less carbon emissions.[93]
    • In an interview with CNBC on August 22, 2016, Johnson said, "I do think that climate change is occurring, that it is man-caused. One of the proposals that I think is a very libertarian proposal, and I'm just open to this, is taxing carbon emission that may have the result of being self-regulating. ... The market will take care of it. I mean, when you look at it from the standpoint of better results, and actually less money to achieve those results, that's what is being professed by a carbon tax."[94]
    • On the questions of climate change and whether or not humans contribute to it, Johnson said on his campaign website: "Is the climate changing? Probably so. Is man contributing to that change? Probably so. But the critical question is whether the politicians’ efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the private sector are cost-effective – or effective at all."[88]
    • Johnson said in a December 2011 interview with NPR that although he believed climate change was human-induced, he did not support cap and trade regulations to lower carbon emissions. He said, "You know, I'm accepting that global warming is man-caused. That said, I am opposed to cap and trade. I think that free-market approach. Hey, we're all demanding less carbon emission. I think we're going to get it."[95]
    Fracking
    • In November 2011, Johnson said he would "keep an open mind" on fracking. He cautioned, however, that "the fact that in Pennsylvania you could turn your faucet on and get water before fracking, and afterwards you could light it — that's a concern. That's a real, live concern.”[96]


    Green Party Jill Stein

    See also: Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2016
    caption
    • On September 7, 2016, warrants were filed in Morton County, North Dakota, for the arrest of Jill Stein and her running mate, Ajamu Baraka, for misdemeanor charges of criminal trespass and criminal mischief. They allegedly vandalized equipment at a construction site to protest the Dakota Access pipeline. Stein called her actions "civil disobedience." She added, “I hope the North Dakota authorities press charges against the real vandalism taking place at the Standing Rock Sioux reservation: the bulldozing of sacred burial sites and the unleashing of vicious attack dogs."[97]
    • Stein expressed her opposition to fossil fuels in an interview on Fox Business on August 26, 2016. She said, “What the science actually says and the studies and the experts say that if we have the political will, we can convert. And it’s not just a matter of shutting down fossil fuel—it’s a matter of creating the good jobs for the economy of the future that’s healthy for us as people and healthy for the planet. … Fortunately, we save so much money by the health improvements from phasing out fossil fuels—it’s actually enough to pay for those jobs to ensure the green energy transition.”[98]
    • Jill Stein tweeted on August 11, 2016, “My attorney general will prosecute Exxon for lying to the world about climate change. We need to end fossil fuels before it's too late.”[99]
    • On January 26, 2016, Stein expressed outrage over the lead concentrations in the drinking water of residents of Flint, Michigan. She said, "No human being should be condemned to drink water contaminated by a neurotoxin.” Stein called for criminal prosecution of the governor and other public officials who were aware of the contamination, immediate federal and state intervention to resolve Flint’s water crisis, and a massive federal investment in the nation’s crumbling water system.[100]
    • In a November 29, 2015, interview with The Harvard Crimson, Stein said she “hopes to replicate key aspects of the New Deal legislation,” which she believes “would allow the US to become fully dependent on renewable energy within 15 years.” She said the plan “revives the economy, creates well paying living wage jobs that we desperately need at the same time that it greens the economy and the energy system and therefore turns the tide on climate change and makes wars for oil obsolete. It’s a win-win.”[101]
    • As part of the "Green New Deal" promoted on her 2016 presidential campaign website, Stein supported "transitioning to 100% clean renewable energy by 2030."[102]
    • Stein was charged with trespassing when she attempted to provide food to activists protesting the Keystone XL pipeline in October 2012.[103]
    • On Stein's 2012 presidential campaign website, she listed five action items she would take to improve the environment.
    • "Create millions of green jobs in areas such as weatherization, recycling, public transportation, worker and community owned cooperatives, and energy-efficient infrastructure."[104]
    • "Adopt the EPA's new tougher standards on ozone pollution."[104]
    • "Promote conversion to sustainable, nontoxic materials."[104]
    • "Promote use of closed-loop, zero waste processes."[104]
    • "Promote organic agriculture, permaculture, and sustainable forestry."[104]
    Climate change
    • On June 28, 2016, Jill Stein “said that the proposed deal with Mexico and Canada to go to 50% carbon-free electricity from 2025 is inadequate to meet the climate goals set in Paris,” according to a press release from her campaign. Stein said, "Obama's proposals are a step in the right direction but way too little. We need an emergency national mobilization similar to what our country did after Pearl Harbor at the outset of WWII." Stein proposes transitioning “to 100% clean energy for everything - not just electricity – by 2030 while creating 20 million jobs and avoiding hundreds of thousands of annual ‘excess deaths’ from air pollution.”[105]
    • During a February 15, 2016, interview with Chris Hedges posted on TheRealNews.com, Stein said, "[W]e are facing an all-out climate emergency."[106]
    Fracking
    • After traveling to Paris to participate in events related to the United Nations Climate Change Conference, Stein said in a statement on December 11, 2015, “The voluntary, unenforceable pledges being produced by COP21 are entirely insufficient to prevent catastrophic climate change. Scientific analysis shows that these pledges will lead us to 3 degrees Celsius global temperature rise - and that will be catastrophic." She added that the spread of the hydrofracking industry in the U.S. “is leading to a spreading cancer of polluted groundwater and fracked gas pipelines.”[107]


    Ballot measures

    Energy ballot measures

    See also: Energy on the ballot and Fracking on the ballot
    Voting on Energy
    Energy.jpg
    Policy
    Energy policy
    Ballot Measures
    By state
    By year
    Not on ballot

    Certified energy ballot measures

    The following ballot measures were certified for the 2016 election..

    1. Washington Modifying Tax Exemption Criteria for Alternative Fuel Vehicles, Advisory Vote 15 (2016)
      A "repealed" vote opposed House Bill 2778, thereby advising against this limitation of the tax exemption offered for certain alternative fuel vehicles.[108]
      A "maintained" vote supported House Bill 2778, which limits the sales tax exemption available for certain alternative fuel vehicles, thereby increasing the tax revenue received by the state.
    2. Florida Property Tax Exemptions for Renewable Energy Equipment, Amendment 4 (August 2016)
      A "yes" vote supported providing tax exemptions for solar power and other renewable energy equipment included in home, commercial, and industrial property values that would otherwise fall under the tangible property tax bracket.
      A "no" vote opposed providing additional tax exemptions for renewable energy equipment beyond the tax exemptions offered by the state as of the beginning of 2016.

    Proposed energy ballot measures

    The following ballot measures did not make the ballot in 2016.

    1. Maine Wind Energy Act Repeal and Amendment (2016)
    2. Colorado Ban on Fracking Amendment (2016)
    3. Missouri "Net Metering and Easy Connection Act" (2016)
    4. Oregon Fossil Fuel Expansion Ban Initiative (2016)
    5. Massachusetts Solar and Renewable Energy Initiative (2016)
    6. Massachusetts Renewable Energy Initiative (2016)
    7. Nevada Solar Rate Restoration Veto Referendum, Question 5 (2016)
    8. California Publicly-owned Electric Utilities Initiative (2016)

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants," accessed, July 19, 2016
    2. ↑ Harvard Law Review, "The Clean Power Plan," February 10, 2016
    3. ↑ The Daily Beast, "EPA’s New Regulations to Cut Carbon Emissions Are Obamacare for the Air," June , 2014
    4. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Federal Court Denies States’ Request to Temporarily Block EPA Carbon Rules," September 9, 2015
    5. ↑ The Viewpoint, "12 States Sue EPA Over Proposed Power Plant Regulations," September 15, 2014
    6. ↑ Utility Dive, "Messing with Texas: Can the state block the EPA's Clean Power Plan?" May 15, 2015
    7. ↑ New York Law Journal, "Legal Challenges to Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan," September 11, 2014
    8. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Ten Things to Know About the EPA's Clean Power Plan," accessed August 3, 2015
    9. ↑ Federal Register, "40 CFR Part 60 Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units ," October 23, 2015
    10. ↑ The Atlantic, "Federal Coercion and the EPA’s Clean Power Plan," May 17, 2015
    11. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Efforts to Regulate Coal Emissions," February 9, 2016
    12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 The Heritage Foundation, "The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations: A Primer," July 7, 2015 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Heritage overview" defined multiple times with different content
    13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Federal Register, "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," October 23, 2015
    14. ↑ Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Kemper County IGCC Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project," June 18, 2016
    15. ↑ The New York Times, "Piles of Dirty Secrets Behind a Model ‘Clean Coal’ Project," July 5, 2016
    16. ↑ Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, "Carbon Capture Use and Storage," July 6, 2012
    17. ↑ Govtrack.us, "Text of the National Climate Act," accessed May 15, 2016
    18. ↑ Legislation data were collected from Govtrack.us through their API.
    19. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "U.S. Rail Transportation of Crude Oil: Background and Issues for Congress," December 4, 2014
    20. ↑ Political New York, "Cuomo administration rejects Constitution pipeline," April 22, 2016
    21. ↑ Politico New York, "Low prices, loud opposition led to scuttling of pipeline," April 22, 2016
    22. ↑ 23.0 23.1 CNN, "5 things to know about the Dakota Access Pipeline," August 31, 2016
    23. ↑ 24.0 24.1 United States District Court for the District of Columbia, "Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, et al., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al., Civil Action No. 16-1534 (JEB)," September 9, 2016
    24. ↑ 25.0 25.1 United States District Court for the District of Columbia, "Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, et al., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al., Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief," July 27, 2016
    25. ↑ 26.0 26.1 Politico, "Floor time for Flint-aiding WRDA bill," September 8, 2016
    26. ↑ The Atlantic, "The Legal Case for Blocking the Dakota Access Pipeline," September 9, 2016
    27. ↑ Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed September 9, 2016
    28. ↑ The United States Department of Justice, "Joint Statement from the Department of Justice, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior Regarding Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," September 9, 2016
    29. ↑ The Hill, "Federal court reviews tribe's request to halt Dakota pipeline," October 5, 2016
    30. ↑ Bill Track 50, "Hydraulic Fracturing Legislation 2016," accessed May 10, 2016
    31. ↑ The New York Times, "Judge Blocks Obama Administration Rules on Fracking," September 30, 2015
    32. ↑ Breitbart, "Energy Producers Sue Obama Admin over New Fracking Regulations," March 21, 2015
    33. ↑ Politico, "Interior's new fracking rules get swift GOP backlash," March 19, 2015
    34. ↑ Desert News, "Utah joins lawsuit over federal fracking rule," May 18, 2015
    35. ↑ Houston Chronicle, "Federal judge strikes down Obama's hydraulic fracturing rule," June 22, 2016
    36. ↑ Office of Natural Resource Revenue, "Statistical Information," accessed October 11, 2015
    37. ↑ Western Energy Alliance, "Production," accessed November 25, 2015
    38. ↑ James M. Inhofe - U.S. Senator, Oklahoma, "Inhofe Introduces Bill to Achieve Domestic Energy Independence Through State Control of Federal Energy Resources," June 26, 2013
    39. ↑ Roll Call, "Democrats and Environmentalists Want Higher Royalties for Drilling on Federal Lands," August 10, 2015
    40. ↑ The Hill, "Dems unveil 'strongest anti-fracking bill' for federal land," April 22, 2015
    41. ↑ Office of Congressman Paul Gosar, "Reps. Gosar, Thompson, Heck, Polis, Franks & Ruiz Introduce Bipartisan Legislation Unleashing Renewable Energy Potential on Public Lands," June 4, 2015
    42. ↑ The New York Times, "Divide Grows in Southeast Over Offshore Drilling Plan," March 3, 2016
    43. ↑ EcoWatch, "Feds Find Offshore Fracking in the Pacific Would Have No ‘Significant’ Environmental Impact," June 2, 2016
    44. ↑ Forbes, "Federal Environmental Regulators Dispel Fracking Fears," June 1, 2016
    45. ↑ 46.0 46.1 Democratic Platform Committee, "2016 Democratic Party Platform," July 8-9, 2016
    46. ↑ 47.0 47.1 47.2 47.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    47. ↑ 48.0 48.1 Republican National Convention, "Republican Platform 2016," accessed August 5, 2016
    48. ↑ Libertarian Party, "Platform," archived August 23, 2016
    49. ↑ Green Party, "The 2016 Green Party Platform on Ecological Sustainability," archived August 28, 2016
    50. ↑ The Guardian, "Hillary Clinton on east coast oil drilling: 'So little to gain and so much to lose,'" December 17, 2015
    51. ↑ Politico, "Hillary Clinton's climate army," August 11, 2016
    52. ↑ The Hill, "Clinton open to ‘conversation’ on carbon tax," July 26, 2016
    53. ↑ NextGen Climate, "HUGE NEWS: BERNIE SANDERS JOINS HILLARY CLINTON IN ENDORSING #50BY30," February 9, 2016
    54. ↑ Hillary for America: The Briefing, "Hillary Clinton Statement on the Paris Climate Change Agreement," accessed December 14, 2015
    55. ↑ TIME, "Hillary Clinton Announces Plan to Protect Coal Communities," November 12, 2015
    56. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Hillary Clinton Previews Plans to Combat Climate Change," July 26, 2015
    57. ↑ YouTube, "Stand for Reality," July 26, 2015
    58. ↑ CNN, "First on CNN: Clinton campaign pledges to be carbon neutral, aide says," July 28, 2015
    59. ↑ The Hill, "Hillary Clinton: Climate changing 'no matter what deniers may say,'" accessed February 2, 2015
    60. ↑ Time, “The Eco Vote. A field guide to the would-be Presidents," accessed December 17, 2014
    61. ↑ CNN Politics, "Hillary Clinton opposes Keystone XL pipeline," September 22, 2015
    62. ↑ USA Today, "Hillary Clinton says she opposes Keystone XL Pipeline," September 22, 2015
    63. ↑ Politico, "Hillary Clinton steers clear of Keystone," July 27, 2015
    64. ↑ The New York Times, "Transcript: Democratic Presidential Debate in Brooklyn," April 15, 2016
    65. ↑ The New York Times, "Transcript of the Democratic Presidential Debate in Flint, Mich.," March 6, 2016
    66. ↑ National Journal, "Hillary Clinton: Arctic Drilling 'Not Worth The Risk,'" August 18, 2015
    67. ↑ Politico, “Hillary Clinton talks climate change, gas and exports to friendly energy crowd," September 4, 2014
    68. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.22 - Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009," accessed February 2, 2015
    69. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.Amdt.272 to S.Con.Res.23," accessed February 2, 2015
    70. ↑ YouTube, "Full Speech: Donald Trump Speech at Shale Insight Conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (9/22/2016)," September 22, 2016
    71. ↑ USA Today, "Donald Trump tells Californians there is no drought," May 28, 2016
    72. ↑ ABC News, "Bernie Sanders Mocks Trump's 'Genius' on California Drought," May 29, 2016
    73. ↑ The Huffington Post, "Donald Trump Taps Climate Change Skeptic As Key Energy Adviser," May 13, 2016
    74. ↑ Twitter, "Donald J. Trump, August 24, 2012," accessed June 18, 2015
    75. ↑ Trump, Donald. (2011). Time to Get Tough. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing. (page 24)
    76. ↑ Examiner, "Donald Trump: 'Beyond the nuclear' American energy solutions - Full transcript," March 16, 2011
    77. ↑ DonaldJTrump.com, "Trump campaign statement on Paris Climate Accord," October 5, 2016
    78. ↑ Politico, "Trump adviser denies climate change is manmade," September 27, 2016
    79. ↑ Scientific American, "What Do the Presidential Candidates Know about Science?" September 13, 2016
    80. ↑ The Guardian, "Donald Trump would allow Keystone XL pipeline and end Paris climate deal," May 26, 2016
    81. ↑ Donald Trump for President, "​An America First Energy Plan," May 26, 2016
    82. ↑ CNN, "Donald Trump's energy plan: Regulate less, drill more," May 27, 2016
    83. ↑ Politico, "Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course," May 23, 2016
    84. ↑ The Federalist, "Trump Boosts Anti-Fracking Measure, Upends Swing State Energy Fight," August 5, 2016
    85. ↑ FOX News, "Trump to GOP: Stop playing into President Obama's hands," January 18, 2012
    86. ↑ NPR, "Libertarian Nominee Gary Johnson Delivers Economic Speech In Detroit," September 14, 2016
    87. ↑ 88.0 88.1 JohnsonWeld, "Environment," accessed September 1, 2016
    88. ↑ YouTube, "Gary Johnson on Keystone pipeline," March 24, 2012
    89. ↑ Gary Johnson 2012, "Environment," accessed January 9, 2016
    90. ↑ Reddit, "I am Gov. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for President. AMA," September 26, 2012
    91. ↑ Scott Holleran, "Interview with Gary Johnson," August 21, 2011
    92. ↑ Washington Examiner, "Gary Johnson: I'll cut your taxes," July 10, 2016
    93. ↑ CNBC, "Libertarian Gary Johnson on 2016: 'This is the demise of the Republican Party'," August 22, 2016
    94. ↑ NPR, "Johnson Discusses Seeking Libertarian Nomination," December 30, 2011
    95. ↑ Politico, "Morning Energy," November 18, 2011
    96. ↑ The Hill, "Jill Stein charged over pipeline protest," September 7, 2016
    97. ↑ Fox Business, "Jill Stein: Ending Fossil Fuels Is a 'Tough Job'," August 26, 2016
    98. ↑ Twitter, "Dr. Jill Stein," August 11, 2016
    99. ↑ Jill Stein for President, "Stein Says Gov. Snyder Should Be Prosecuted For Flint Crisis. Calls for New Water Infrastructure Through A Green New Deal to End Nationwide Drinking Water Crisis," January 24, 2016
    100. ↑ The Harvard Crimson, "Harvard Grad Jill Stein Faces Uphill Battle for Presidency," November 29, 2015
    101. ↑ Jill 2016, "Power to the People Plan," accessed July 7, 2015
    102. ↑ Washington Post, "Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein charged with trespassing in Keystone XL protest," October 31, 2012
    103. ↑ 104.0 104.1 104.2 104.3 104.4 Jill Stein for President, "Issues," accessed July 6, 2015
    104. ↑ JillStein2016.com, "Press Release: Obama's Carbon Deal Won't Avoid Climate Change," June 28, 2016
    105. ↑ TheRealNews.com, "Days of Revolt: The Problem," February 15, 2016
    106. ↑ Green Party USA, "Stein: UN Process has failed to save climate: People must act," accessed December 11, 2015
    107. ↑ Transport Evolved, "Washington State Raises Threshold for Electric Car Exemption Program, Paves Way for 200-Mile Affordable EVS," April 19, 2016
    v • e
    Ballotpedia's Election Analysis in 2016
    Main
    Federal Desk
    State Desk
    Local Desk
    Policy Desk
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Energy_policy_disputes_in_the_2016_elections&oldid=9067605"