Since you asked...
POLITICO has come up with a wish list of policy questions for tonight's presidential debate — you know, just in case ABC News’ David Muir and Linsey Davis need some last-minute ideas. Tonight may be the only time Harris and Trump share a stage before the November election. It's a ripe opportunity to press Trump on why he claims the Biden administration is waging a war on American energy — amid a historic boom in U.S. production of oil, natural gas and renewables. It's also a chance to prod Harris on whether she will lift the administration's pause on new natural gas export permits. But if history is any guide, it's far from a sure thing that policy revelations will be the top news out of the debate. Fear of (climate) commitment?
With just two months to go until the presidential election, Harris has avoided hot button energy issues, writes Brian Dabbs. Instead, she’s taking a minimalist approach, saying just enough to ensure voters know she represents a stark difference from Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax” and pledged to “drill, baby, drill.” Environmentalists are divided on whether that strategy helps her campaign — and the effort to combat climate change. Some activists say Harris could mobilize young voters by making more campaign trail climate commitments, which in turn would help ensure Harris delivers real results if she's elected. “We want to be able to sell that to our base. We want to be able to push for the climate agenda that we know that we need,” said Collin Rees, program manager at Oil Change International. Targeting agency power
Conservative lawyers are crafting their next fight to stifle federal regulators, after the Supreme Court pared back the power of federal agencies to defend themselves against legal challenges, writes Pamela King. Recent lawsuits target federal agency decisions to block roadbuilding through a national forest in Alaska, impose federal wetlands protections and halt projects like the Pebble copper and gold mine. They all invoke the nondelegation doctrine, a legal theory that would bar lawmakers from passing too much of their legislative authority to executive agencies. The Supreme Court hasn’t used the doctrine since 1935, but conservative lawyers believe the justices may be poised to revive it — especially after deciding in June to overturn Chevron deference.
| 
