| Progressives who assumed they had an ally in John Fetterman — a tattooed, hoodie-wearing first-term senator with a raft of green-group endorsements — are confounded by the Pennsylvania Democrat’s takes on two hot issues: tailpipe pollution and natural gas exports. There may be valid reason for the confusion: He once called global warming an “existential threat” and urged a rapid transition to clean energy, Emma Dumain writes. Fetterman’s unease with the pace of the transition has surfaced in recent comments. He suggested he could support killing an Environmental Protection Agency rule meant to cut vehicle emissions and help clear a path for a shift to electric vehicles. The measure introduced by Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho would block funding to implement the rule. EPA estimates that under the rule, 68 percent of new car sales will be electric vehicles in 2032. “I haven’t even purchased [an EV], and I don’t anticipate purchasing one in the immediate future,” Fetterman told POLITICO’s E&E News in March, shortly after EPA released the rule. “I understand why we want to migrate more towards that, but at the end of the day, perhaps [the rule] might be overly aggressive.” Fetterman has further frustrated environmental advocates such as the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club – which endorsed him while he was running for office – by questioning the Biden administration’s freeze on new export permits for deliveries of U.S. liquefied natural gas to non-free-trade-agreement countries. Pennsylvania is the second largest natural-gas-producing state, behind only Texas, according to the Energy Information Administration. “I’m not comfortable with the choices that [Fetterman] is making and the way that he is framing these issues,” said Liz Green Schultz, political director for the Pennsylvania-based Clean Air Action Fund, in reaction to the senator’s comments on the EPA clean car standard. “I don’t understand his motivations.” Fetterman has not yet said for certain whether he would vote to strip funding to implement a tougher tailpipe emissions standard. Transportation is the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. “Democrats need to be honest that the transition from fossil fuels isn’t going to happen overnight,” said an aide to the senator, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. GOP climate politics
Democrats in Congress aren’t alone in the struggle to calibrate their positions on President Joe Biden’s energy agenda. In late March over 100 GOP representatives voted to protect the Inflation Reduction Act, joining Democrats to strike down an amendment that would have prevented certain companies using the climate law’s tax incentives from taking advantage of streamlined permitting, as Kelsey Brugger writes today. This is less than two years after the IRA became law with zero Republican votes. Echoing the unsuccessful attempts to roll back the Affordable Care Act during the Trump administration, the IRA and its funding for clean energy projects are proving to be a challenge to repeal or obstruct for this crop of conservative Republicans. Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), who spearheaded the failed amendment, said Republicans will want to use a “scalpel” rather than a sledgehammer to revise the IRA should they take power in November. All politics are local, after all. Just as Fetterman answers to constituents whose jobs are tied to natural gas production, many Republicans represent areas that have directly benefited from IRA-subsidized projects. There’s no doubt, though, that IRA clean energy tax credits and manufacturing incentives face a foe in the White House in 2025 if Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, beats Biden in November.
| 
