Drill, Gavin, drill?
We'll be off Friday but will be back in your inboxes Monday.
FLARE UP: Gov. Gavin Newsom, the erstwhile fighter of Big Oil, has cracked the door open to more in-state oil extraction — and California oil drillers are hoping to ride the political momentum.
Newsom told reporters this week he was actively reviewing California Energy Commission Vice Chair Siva Gunda's recommendations to keep California's refineries operating profitably after two of them announced plans to close within the past year and triggered a cascade of concerns about fuel supply and prices.
'There's an imperative to move on this,' Newsom said Tuesday, adding he was weighing both legislative and administrative options. 'We're looking to move very quickly on some of those recommendations.'
Among Gunda's recommendations is a call for lawmakers to statutorily approve new wells in Kern County's oilfields, effectively sidestepping litigation from environmental groups that has snarled the county's years-long effort to streamline permitting. Gunda, echoing longstanding industry complaints, pointed to the legal gridlock as slowing the in-state production that some refineries depend on because they're not built to process foreign crude.
The recommendation has energized in-state oil producers, who've seen state permits for new wells plummeting in recent years as part of the Newsom administration's goal to phase out oil production by 2045.
'It's certainly a welcome development,' said Rock Zierman, the CEO of the California Independent Petroleum Association. 'We're now hoping to translate that into action.'
They're also riding high on the Trump administration's agenda: The Bureau of Land Management is currently taking comments on updates to oil and gas leasing programs in south-central California. And the Interior Department killed a 2012 agreement with California's oil regulator over permitting, a largely symbolic move that was still celebrated by California Republicans this week.
Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president and CEO of the Western States Petroleum Association, said she's heartened by the prospect of more Kern County drilling. 'My hope is that that happens in the short term, not the midterm and not the long term,' she said. 'Otherwise we're going to find ourselves in another very difficult conversation.'
The more than $15 million mailer and ad campaign by in-state oil producers to tie California's climate policies to high gas prices is bearing fruit. Reheis-Boyd said she's had more talks with lawmakers, administration officials and environmental groups in recent months.
One of the 'ground rules' of the talks, Reheis-Boyd said, was that there would be no new drilling near homes or in environmentally sensitive areas. But the environmental and community groups fighting Kern County drilling are unconvinced.
'That is very alarming rhetoric about an in-state turnaround,' said Kassie Siegel, senior counsel and director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute.
She's kept Kern County's drilling effort in the courts, where it remains even after the Kern County Board of Supervisors approved a revised drilling ordinance last week in an attempt to meet a judge's demands for more mitigation measures.
'I don't believe we're going to have any big increase in production in California,' Siegel said. 'But the question is, how much damage is the industry going to do on its way out the door?'
A spokesperson for Speaker Robert Rivas declined to comment on the record. Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire said in an email that state energy officials would brief Democratic senators on the oil recommendations 'soon.'
'The Senate is committed to energy affordability while continuing our nation-leading role combatting the climate crisis,' he said, citing legislative proposals to limit utility costs to ratepayers and overhaul the makeup of transportation fuels. 'We look forward to our continued work with the Assembly and Administration on this critical matter that impacts millions of Californians.'
Meanwhile, Reheis-Boyd is hoping to snag her first meeting with Newsom himself. She's pitched herself for his podcast, she said: 'I'm in line.' — CvK
Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here!
MEGA PROBLEM: Trump's 'megabill' has finally cleared Congress, and that means clean energy advocates can start waving goodbye to federal incentives for electric vehicles, solar panels, wind projects and more.
Republicans' budget package — which Trump plans to sign Friday — rolls back large swathes of former President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, the 2022 law aimed at stimulating domestic clean energy markets.
The new law will eliminate a $7,500 tax credit for EV buyers that automakers had lobbied to protect. (The notable exception being Toyota, which has focused on its hybrid technology.) It will also phase out tax incentives for residential solar and battery storage projects, meaning home energy efficiency upgrades will get more expensive.
Large wind and solar projects are also in a bind. Utility-scale projects can still qualify for tax credits under language negotiated by Senate Republicans, but they'd have to be operational by the end of 2027, a timeline that would leave many projects out in the cold. But hard-line House conservatives said Thursday they'd received assurances from Trump that he would further constrict the incentives.
It's now up to California to pick up the slack. Newsom said last year that he wants to fund EV tax credits with cap-and-trade revenues if federal incentives disappear, but hasn't committed to that proposal as negotiations over extending the emissions trading program heat up. — AN
GLIMMER OF HOPE: California officials got some good news on the EV front Thursday as Trump's Department of Justice declined to immediately appeal an injunction that will restart the flow of federal charging infrastructure to states, David Ferris reports for POLITICO's E&E News.
The fight over the $2.7 billion that states are expecting through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program isn't over. The Federal Highway Administration, which administers the program, said in a statement that it 'still can appeal the preliminary injunction and is currently coordinating its legal strategy with the Department of Justice.'
But the fact it hasn't already means it missed a seven-day appeal window to stop the program from restarting.
Judge Tana Lin ordered the administration last week to restore funding to 14 states that had sued. FHWA froze the program in February, saying that funding would be withheld until it created new rules to replace Biden's. Those rules have still not been published.
California is still earmarked to receive $352 million in NEVI funds. While that figure is small compared to in-state and private resources, the program incentivizes building in less profitable rural areas that charger operators say are more difficult to finance. — AN
CLEAN IT UP: Trump's EPA will have to issue a decision by next July on a plan to clean up Central Valley smog under a tentative legal settlement.
The proposed deal comes after local community groups sued EPA in November, alleging that the agency had missed its statutory deadline to act on a plan developed by San Joaquin Valley air regulators that aims to bring the region into compliance with federal ozone standards, Sean Reilly reports for POLITICO's E&E News.
The Central Valley consistently has among the worst air quality in the nation, linked to factors like the region's topography, agriculture and heavy shipping industries.
Federal and state officials have faced numerous lawsuits over California's air quality plans since the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1971, and could be in store for more after Republicans killed the state's vehicle emissions standards — essentially guaranteeing that it won't meet ozone standards. — AN
LEAVING THE RANCH: John Harris, founder of the Harris Ranch Beef Company and a major Republican donor, died at the age of 81, the Western Growers Association announced Thursday. Harris was one of the most influential figures in the California agriculture community and played a prominent role in backing conservative candidates, including his recent fundraisers for Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance at his Harris Ranch resort in Coalinga.
— The Trump administration's hollowing out of National Park staff could lead to more lost hikers, reservation delays and weather monitoring programs falling by the wayside.
— Voters aren't paying attention to climate, and that's letting Republicans dismantle clean energy projects they support, Sammy Roth writes for the Los Angeles Times.
— Check out the state's harmful algal bloom map as you're planning your lakeside holiday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration News: House Passes Sweeping Bill to Fulfill President's Domestic Agenda
Pinned The House on Thursday narrowly passed a sweeping bill to extend tax cuts and slash social safety net programs, capping Republicans' chaotic monthslong slog to overcome deep rifts within their party and deliver President Trump's domestic agenda. The final vote, 218 to 214, was mostly along party lines and came after Speaker Mike Johnson spent a frenzied day and night toiling to quell resistance in his ranks that threatened until the very end to derail the president's marquee legislation. With all but two Republicans in favor and Democrats uniformly opposed, the action cleared the bill for Mr. Trump's signature, meeting the July 4 deadline he had demanded. The legislation extends tax cuts enacted in 2017 that had been scheduled to expire at the end of the year, while adding new ones Mr. Trump promised during this campaign, on some tips and overtime pay, at a total cost of $4.5 trillion. It also increases funding for defense and border security and cuts nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid, with more reductions to food assistance for the poor and other government aid. And it phases out clean-energy tax credits passed under former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. that Mr. Trump and conservative Republicans have long decried. Also included is a $5 trillion increase in the debt limit, a measure that Republicans are typically unwilling to support but that was necessary to avert a federal default later this year. The bill's final passage was a major victory for congressional Republicans and for Mr. Trump, who celebrated in a Thursday night speech in Des Moines, Iowa, meant to kick off a yearlong celebration of the 250th anniversary of the country's founding. 'With this bill,' Mr. Trump said, 'every major promise I've made to the people of Iowa in 2024 became a promise kept.' Mr. Trump plans to sign what he has frequently referred to as his 'big, beautiful bill' on Friday. G.O.P. lawmakers who had feuded bitterly over the legislation ultimately united almost unanimously behind it, fearing the political consequences of allowing a tax increase and of crossing a president who demands unflagging loyalty and was pressuring them to fall into line. 'If you're for a secure border, safer communities and a strong military, this bill is for you,' Mr. Johnson said, extolling the bill ahead of the final vote. 'If you're for common-sense fiscal responsibility and reducing the deficit, this bill is for you. If you're for fairer and lower taxes, bigger paychecks, affordable gas and groceries and restoring dignity to hard work, this is the bill for you.' But it also was a major political gamble for the party that will leave vulnerable lawmakers open to sharp attacks ahead of next year's midterm elections. Many economists have estimated that its greatest benefits would go to the wealthiest Americans, who would see the most generous tax cuts. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently predicted that cuts to Medicaid, including the imposition of a strict work requirement, could leave 11.8 million more people without health insurance by 2034. The office, studying earlier versions of the bill, had also warned of large benefit losses in food stamps, which will also have new work requirements, threatening to leave millions without benefits. At the same time, contrary to Republican claims that it cut deficits, the budget office reported the measure would swell the already soaring national debt by at least $3.4 trillion over a decade. Polls show that the bill is deeply unpopular, and Democrats have roundly denounced it as a move to slash critical government programs to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. They have repeatedly accused Republicans of being so much in Mr. Trump's thrall that they embraced a bill that would harm their own constituents, with cuts to programs that the president had vowed to protect. In an impassioned closing speech on the House floor that stretched for more than eight and a half hours, breaking the chamber's record and delaying a final vote well into the afternoon, Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, assailed the measure as a 'disgusting abomination' that would hurt Americans. In what amounted to a last gasp of Democratic opposition to the bill, Mr. Jeffries spent much of his time reading testimonials from Americans who said they relied on Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and other government help and worried that cuts would upend their lives. He made a point of highlighting that several of the letters came from people who live in Republican congressional districts that are among the Democrats' top targets for the midterm elections. 'This bill is an all-out assault on the health care of the people of the United States of America, hardworking American taxpayers,' Mr. Jeffries said. 'These are the people we should be standing up, to work hard to lift up. But instead, they're victims of this legislation.' In the messy, monthslong process of pushing through a bill that divided their party, Republicans in both the House and Senate made it clear that they, too, were uncomfortable with parts of it, criticizing its flaws before most of them ultimately banded together to pass it. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, who cast the deciding vote for the bill in her chamber after cutting a series of deals to insulate her constituents from its harshest cuts, said just moments after she had backed the bill that she did not like it. 'This has been an awful process — a frantic rush to meet an artificial deadline that has tested every limit of this institution,' Ms. Murkowski said in a statement earlier this week, in which she urged the House to reopen and improve it. As if to underscore the political risks of the bill — and the intense pressure Republicans faced from Mr. Trump to embrace it — Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina announced during Senate debate on it that he would not seek re-election next year. He went on to savage the bill as a disaster for Medicaid that would betray the president's promises to protect the program. The announcement from Mr. Tillis, whom Mr. Trump had threatened with a primary challenge after he expressed opposition to the bill, was a harsh reminder for Republicans of the consequences of crossing the president on the measure. Because of the slim Republican majorities in both chambers, ideological rifts within the party were frequently magnified as Mr. Johnson and Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the majority leader, tried to muscle the legislation through the House and Senate. They succeeded only after protracted negotiations, several seemingly insurmountable setbacks and parliamentary gymnastics. The House devolved into paralysis on Wednesday and into Thursday morning in the hours before the final action, as a handful of Republicans withheld their votes to bring up the measure. Mr. Trump, who had met with recalcitrant Republicans throughout the day Wednesday to pressure them to support the measure, weighed in with angry posts on social media, threatening any defectors. 'MAGA IS NOT HAPPY, AND IT'S COSTING YOU VOTES!!!' he wrote. In the end, Mr. Johnson pulled off a victory, the latest in a series of instances in which he has faced resistance in his own party to a major legislative priority — only to pull out a narrow win with the help of considerable pressure from Mr. Trump. The bill squeaked through the Senate by the narrowest of margins on Tuesday. But the changes that senators made to cobble together support for it exacerbated party divides that have plagued G.O.P. efforts to advance Mr. Trump's agenda since the beginning. Fiscal conservatives demanded even deeper cuts to rein in the deficit, while more mainstream lawmakers whose seats are at risk were wary of the biggest cuts to popular government programs. One member of each faction voted against the bill on Thursday: Representative Thomas Massie, a fiscal hawk from a deep-red district in Kentucky who had railed against the high cost of the bill, and Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, a moderate from a battleground district in suburban Pennsylvania that Democrats won in the 2024 presidential election, who had expressed concern about the Medicaid, SNAP and other safety net cuts. Mr. Trump and party leaders refused to reopen the bill for changes, a time-consuming process that would have blown through the president's chosen timetable and prolonged negotiations on the package for weeks or months, potentially killing the entire enterprise. Ultimately, the fiscal conservatives who had railed the most strongly against the bill followed a familiar pattern of caving and supporting it. Conservatives have repeatedly refused to back major legislation because of its potential impact on federal deficits, only to back down under pressure from Mr. Trump. After the House gave final approval on Thursday, the president waved off questions about the fractious process, telling reporters on his way to Iowa that it was 'very easy' to sway Republican holdouts. He equivocated on whether conservatives won any concessions outside the bill in last-minute talks. 'What I did is we talked about how good the bill is,' he said. Image Democratic representatives assailed the Republican bill on the steps of the Capitol on Wednesday before raising a number of procedural roadblocks on the House floor. Credit... Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times Representative Andy Harris of Maryland, one such holdout, alluded to deals that he and others cut with Mr. Trump. Mr. Harris, the chairman of the ultraconservative Freedom Caucus, said that lawmakers were swayed by talk of 'executive actions' and other steps he and his administration could take to change the way the law would be carried out. 'We came to significant agreements with the administration that changed the entire package, both inside and outside the bill, significantly.' Mr. Harris said after the final vote. (Once enacted, the legislation itself cannot be changed except by an act of Congress.) Moments after the bill passed, some Freedom Caucus members were already raising the possibility of trying to push through another big policy bill later in the year under special rules that shield fiscal measures from a filibuster, allowing them to pass by a simple majority vote. Representative Chip Roy of Texas, a Freedom Caucus member and one of the Republican holdouts who ultimately voted to pass the bill, said Mr. Trump and White House officials assured him on Wednesday they could use 'another reconciliation package or two,' and executive orders, 'to fix some of the broken appropriations process,' including additional changes to Medicaid, as well as to Medicare. 'I got comfortable with what the administration can do to ameliorate those areas where it got worse,' after the bill was passed by the Senate, Mr. Roy added. Emboldened by the G.O.P. rifts, Democrats have made a point of projecting a united front while they railed against the bill and ramped up pressure on vulnerable Republicans. They condemned Republicans who had warned that many of their constituents rely on Medicaid and cautioned their party's leaders not to try to balance the federal budget at the expense of the much-needed health care program. 'We cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations,' wrote Representative David Valadao of California, one of the most endangered Republicans, and 11 other G.O.P. lawmakers in an April letter to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Jeffries highlighted such statements during his remarks, appealing to Republicans to reject the bill. 'Join us, join us, join us!' he shouted at one point, turning to the G.O.P. side of the chamber. 'All we need are four,' he added, alluding to the number of Republican defections that would defeat the measure. But as the Democratic leader well knew, the Republicans who had spoken out had flipped their positions on the bill overnight. When the final vote came, every signatory to the letter voted yes. Reporting was contributed by Catie Edmondson , Tony Romm , Andrew Duehren , Chris Cameron and Tyler Pager .
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump megabill: Who will benefit in midterms -- Republicans or Democrats?
Fresh off a bruising fight over passage of President Donald Trump's massive tax and policy bill, Republicans and Democrats are now waging a battle over selling it to Americans. Trump celebrated the passage of the bill during a rally in Iowa on Thursday. "Every major promise I made to the people of Iowa in 2024 became a promise kept," he said of the bill's passage. Republicans see a lot to celebrate after weeks of delicate negotiations to get both chambers on the same page, with little room for error. MORE: Trump admin live updates: House narrowly passes megabill, sending it to president's desk The package of $4.5 trillion in tax breaks would make permanent the tax code changes Trump signed into law during his first term, and include new campaign pledges, such as no taxes on tips for some workers, and a 'senior deduction' of $6,000 for older Americans making up to $75,000 annually. It also includes billions in new defense spending and $350 billion for border security and immigration enforcement, to advance the administration's mass deportation efforts. "Republicans should be proud of passing this bill, because it delivers on a lot of the things that they ran on, and that the president ran on," Mark Bednar, a Republican strategist who served as an aide to former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told ABC News. "That's what Republicans would be very wise to lean in on, going into this recess, going into August and the following year." MORE: 'Immoral': Democrat Hakeem Jeffries blasts Trump megabill in record-breaking, 8-plus-hour speech Democrats searching for a message after last November have seized on the package's gradual changes to safety net programs, such as Medicaid and food stamps -- through a combination of work requirements and tax changes. Nearly 12 million Americans would lose health coverage, and 3 million would not receive SNAP benefits under the legislation, according to initial estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Overall, the CBO estimated the measure would add $3.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., who spoke against the bill on the House floor for nearly nine hours Thursday, told the stories of Americans who he said could be impacted by safety net cuts. "Shame on the people who've decided to launch that kind of all-out assault on the health and the well-being of everyday Americans," he said. For their part, Republicans have challenged estimates of the overall impact of the package on the national debt. And they have argued that work requirements, if implemented properly, would weed out abuse in safety net programs. MORE: The 2 House Republicans who voted no on Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill According to a June poll from Quinnipiac University, 29% of voters supported the bill, while 55% opposed it. The same poll showed that registered voters were evenly split on the issue of work requirements on able-bodied Medicaid recipients without dependents: 47% in favor of the new requirements, and 46% opposed. A mid-June Fox News poll found similar results: 59% of registered voters said they oppose the bill, while 38% of them favored it. About half of voters in that poll thought the bill would hurt them and their families, while 40% said they did not understand the bill very much, or at all. Some Democratic leaders and officials believe the combination of tax cuts and potential changes to some Americans' health care coverage could allow the party to recapture the anger and anti-Trump backlash that helped the party reclaim the House in 2018, after Republicans passed their tax package and repeatedly failed to repeal Obamacare. "It's going to be very important for the Democrats to define, for the electorate and for voters, exactly who's most impacted by these Medicaid cuts, and in particular, what the longer term impacts of all the debt are actually going to be," said Dan Sena, a Democratic strategist who oversaw the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2018. But the midterms may not be exact parallels. Heading into 2018, Republicans were defending 25 districts that voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. MORE: How Trump's megabill could affect Medicaid and who could lose coverage Today, 13 Democrats represent districts carried by Trump last year, while just three Republicans represent districts won by former Vice President Kamala Harris. Eight years ago, Democrats largely opposed Trump's legislative agenda. But this time around, some Democrats have offered support for some of his policies, including the new provision for no taxes on tips. Democrats also acknowledge they face a different Republican Party in 2025 -- one that is more in step with Trump, and one that, despite some sharp policy debates, ultimately backed his top legislative priority. That's not to say there weren't exceptions: Democrats pointed to the dissent of Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who slammed the bill's Medicaid provisions, and its potential impact on his home state. His comments led to criticism -- and the threat of a primary challenge - from Trump. When the dust settled, Tillis voted against the bill in the Senate, but also announced he would not run for re-election. Speaking at the Iowa rally on Thursday, Trump suggested Republicans can use the megabill to their advantage in the midterms. 'With all of the things we did with the tax cuts and rebuilding our military, not one Democrat voted for us," Trump said. "And I think we use it in the campaign that's coming up -- the midterms, because we've got to beat them."
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Virginia Has Become a Hotbed for Immigration Arrests
The pace of immigration arrests has shot up across the country under the second Trump term, but few places have seen a spike quite as sharp as in Virginia. Arrests in the state by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are up more than 350 percent since 2024, one of the steepest increases in the country. This outpaces the growth in ICE arrests in Democratic-run states like California and New York and Republican-controlled states like Florida and Texas. Nearly 3,000 people were arrested by ICE in Virginia in the first five months of 2025, on par with numbers in a much larger state like New York. It is not entirely clear why Virginia, a politically middle-of-the-road state, has become such a magnet for immigration enforcement. The state's immigrant population has increased dramatically in recent decades, and Virginia is now home to more than a million immigrants, most of them citizens or legal residents. But compared to some other states where arrests haven't risen as much, like neighboring Maryland, people born in foreign countries make up a smaller percentage of the population. One difference may be that ICE has the unqualified backing of Virginia's leaders, as well as sheriff departments across the state. Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican nearing the end of his term, has been full-throated in his support for President Trump's immigration crackdown. Sounding a constant refrain about the perils of 'dangerous criminal illegal immigrants,' Mr. Youngkin has championed the work of a federal-state task force aimed at combating 'transnational organized crime.' He has directed his state's law enforcement agencies to partner with federal immigration authorities and threatened to withhold funding from local governments that do not fully cooperate with ICE. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
