The view from Washington: revenge, reconciliation, and the fight over climate policy

It's a lot to cover, and some of it is complicated and arcane, as I'll explain in a moment. Those who follow my writing know that I believe strongly that clean energy and environmental advocates need to understand the political context to be effective.

Politics are a tit-for-tat world. Washington is no exception. It's always been that way but hasn't always been so negative. Beyond any particular issue are personal and political dynamics between the actors. Favors given favors earned in other areas can be the deciding factor when it comes time to vote.

These days, tit-for-tat seems all about revenge and getting even. It starts with the president-elect himself, but he's hardly alone. Neither is it limited to the Republicans.

Retiring Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) decided to defeat Majority Leader Schumer's effort to maintain a Democratic majority on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The senators voted against reconfirming the current Board Chair, Lauren McFerran. The GOP Senate will fill that spot when the 119th Congress opens for business.

Manchin and Sinema have been a thorn in Schumer's side ever since they refused to support President Biden's Build Back Better legislation, which was a moreexpansive version of what became the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

Manchin, in particular, has resisted his Democratic colleagues for reasons I'll leave up to him to explain. Likely, the West Virginian is still vengeful over Biden's and Schumer's failed promise of passing his proposed permitting reform bill.

On the House side, former Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) are at each other's throats over AOC's campaigning to become the ranking minority member on the powerful House Oversight Committee. Being in the minority, the ranking member has limited control over what the committee does. However, ranking minority members usually become committee chairs when their party is in power.

A fight between Pelosi and AOC has been brewing for a while—perhaps since 2018 when "more than 200 youth activists, flanked by Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, flooded House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's office" demanding a Green New Deal. The former speaker is backing Representative Gerry Connolly (D-VA). The battle isn't just about Pelosi's anger over the sit-in and the Green New Deal.

The Green New Deal (GND) has caused the Democrats untold problems—politically. Trump and his MAGA minions, as well as the fossil fuel industry and others, have used it as a meme for what ails America.

The GND allowed the former and future president to dictate the dialogue about climate change and how far left the Democrats have moved. It meant that moderate Democrats defended something they didn't support.

To be clear, it's not that Pelosi and most congressional Democrats don't support an aggressive response to Earth's warming or a speedy transition to a low-carbon economy. It's that the dialogue got muddled, and things like Americans having to give up hamburgers dominated the dialogue. For the Democrats, it was a lot like having to answer: "When did you stop beating your wife?"

The battle between the Speaker Emerita and AOC is something of a microcosm of the internal conflicts the Democrats are facing in the wake of the November elections. Progressives didn't do well. In fact, the vaunted Squad lost two members—Representatives Cory Bush (D-MO) and Jamaal Bowman (D-NY).

There's a tug-of-war between the moderate and progressive wings of the party. It's not a new battle. What allows it to come out now is the Democrats having become the minority party. In a sense, their relative powerlessness allows fissures that have been there all along to expand because the consequence of division is much less.

"Progressives fear that moderates will angle for more of the same type of centrism that caused Democrats defeats, while middle-ground stalwarts see too much liberalism as the reason they lost to Trump all over again." - Hanna Trudo

The discipline needed to pass legislation is no longer necessary because the Democrats aren't in a position to pass any legislation—at least for now. There are other aspects to the campaign for the Oversight Committee.

Pelosi is supporting Representative Gerry Connally (D-VA) as the ranking member. Connolly is both a centrist and a septuagenarian. Generational change is in the wind, and it's not always going to be smooth sailing for the Democrats when it comes to the elders releasing their grip.

Sub-groups within the Democratic House conference are also weighing into the the Oversight Committee fight. The Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have endorsed AOC. Connolly has gained the endorsement of the center-left New Democratic Coalition. Connolly is both a centrist and a septuagenarian. Pelosi, of course, is her own force of nature.

Republicans in Congress continue their internal battles over how to pass Trump's America First agenda. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Thune (R-SD) and House Speaker Johnson (R-LA) are at odds over how best to package the legislation needed to enact the agenda.

The Republicans are looking to enact the bulk of Trump’s America First agenda following the same parliamentary procedure the Democrats used to enact the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The process is called budget reconciliation, and it allows the passage of legislation having to do with the federal budget by a simple majority vote.

In practice, passage of legislation in the Senate requires 60 votes. The Senate allows filibusters—which is the promise of a senator to talk so long as to prevent a measure from ever being voted on. To close down a filibuster requires a super majority of 60 votes. The last time either party had a Senate supermajority was in 2008, when the Democrats held sway.

The rules of reconciliation permit passage by a simple majority, and the bill can't be filibustered. BUT—and it's a very big but—there are complex rules about what can be included in a reconciliation package.

The procedure is subject to what is referred to as the Byrd Rule, which "prevents reconciliation bills from becoming a way to pass policy changes that aren't related to the federal budget." The interpreter of those rules is the Senate parliamentarian, a non-partisan position.

The parliamentarian's ruling is not law, although it generally determines the ultimate package of tax, spending, and debt-limit legislation.

"The process begins when the House and Senate Budget Committees include instructions in the annual budget resolution. These instructions tell other committees to develop legislation that affects spending, revenues, or the debt limit. The legislation is then considered by the full House or Senate."

The process can take many months depending on the ability of the majority party to pass the resolutions, get committee numbers, find enough votes in the House to pass it on to the Senate and for the parliamentarian to pass judgment and for the Senate vote and send it on to the president.

I heard a reporter the other day say that she conceived and gave birth to her son faster than the Democrats could pass the IRA through the reconciliation process.

The debate between Thune and Johnson is about the number and order of reconciliation bills. The more chock-full the legislation, the more opportunities there are for conflict. Putting together all of Trump's tax, immigration, energy, government reorganization, etc., etc. into a single package could mean enough conflicts that a bill couldn't be passed within the two-year term of the 119th Congress.

Therefore, it's likely that there will be two reconciliation packages, which leaves the question of how to split them up—knowing that there might not be enough time and discipline to pass a second bill before the 2026 elections. (Are you with me so far?)

Thune and Johnson have different notions of what to do first. Thune wants topackage border security, the military, and energy in the first bill, leaving themuch more complicated and contentious matter of extending Trump's tax creditsand dealing with other tax issues, e.g., electric vehicles, in a second bill.

At the moment, there appears no movement one way or the other. Johnson and Thune are each holding their positions—with the matter of a single large reconciliation still in the shadows. It's hoped that Trump might make the call and settle the debate. Should the strategy fail, it would get both Thune and Johnson off the hook. However, it would put Trump on it.

Trump's nominees are running around the Capitol, meeting with senators in hopes of securing their votes. The embattled nominee for Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, seems to be making some headway. Trump has reiterated his support--even taking Hegseth to the Army-Navy football game. And Senator Joni Ernst seems less opposed.

Although the Trump transition team has now gotten the FBI involved in background checks on nominees, the dirt continues to be dished on those he's already nominated. Trump's emphasis on loyalty and failure to look beyond what a nominee has done for him is problematic, not just for those who need confirmation.

Trump nominated his daughter Tiffany's father-in-law, Massad Boulos, as his Middle East advisor. According to the New York Times and multiple other publications, Boulos isn't the billionaire tycoon and lawyer he claims to be. In fact, records show for the past 20 years, he's been selling trucks and heavy machinery in Nigeria for a company his father-in-law controls. His stake in the $865,000 company is $1.53. There is little evidence that Boulos has any expertise in Middle Eastern relations.

The point here isn't to embarrass Mr. Boulos but to suggest that Trump is putting together an administration whose loyalty to him is unquestioned but whose credentials should be. Incidents like this are reported globally and diminish the stature of the president-elect and the nation.

The Biden administration is making every effort to Trump-proof the environment. Not only are funds being pushed out the door at record rates, but new regulations are being finalized. Efforts began shortly after the election.

It took the administration just two days after the election to finalize plans to limit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and restrict drilling, mining, and livestock grazing on 65 million acres across ten western states.

In the next installment of the View from Washington essay series, I’ll be covering the on-going activities of Trump 2.0 transition in the White House and on Capitol Hill. I’ll begin to focus on the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) headed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, which isn’t a department or officially part of government. As well, I’ll be discussing how the judiciary fits into the scheme of things.

This article is also published on the author's blog. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.