[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Before the membership break, if you're just joining us, we heard from Congressman Frank Pallone in part one of our Health and Climate Tuesday section of the show. We focus mostly on health, the Medicaid cuts the committee he sits on is considering that Republican leaders hope to finalize by the end of this week. He also touched on some climate provisions in the bill, which his Energy and Commerce Committee, he's the ranking Democrat, also has to vote on. We'll dig deeper on those now, including this one that the congressman singled out that really blew his mind near the end of the segment.

Congressman Frank Pallone: The thing that really drove me crazy was that they said that if an oil and gas company or an LNG company wanted to get approval, they could pay somewhere between $1 million and $10 million fee with their application. If they did that, then they would not have to go through any environmental review.

Brian Lehrer: Really, you could buy your way out of an environmental review? Congressman Frank Pallone from part one of Health and Climate Tuesdays there. For part two, we welcome Kelsey Brugger who covers energy and climate polit on Capitol Hill for Politico's E&E News, Energy and Environment News. Kelsey, thanks for joining us. Welcome to WNYC.

Kelsey Brugger: Hi, thanks for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Can we just start with that sound bite from Congressman Pallone? Is the House really considering something that blatant, fossil fuel permits with no environmental review for a fee? Had you heard of that before?

Kelsey Brugger: Sure. Yes, there are provisions in this mega bill on permitting which attaches a fee, which to do this reconciliation package, policies have to have this budget nexus. That's where this fee comes in. There are provisions that would accelerate environmental review for massive projects to about six months to a year, and really, most importantly, shield it from litigation, which is what ties up a lot of these massive projects for years and years. Critics like Pallone have said this is a pay to play scheme. Environmental groups have been pretty frustrated by this. Republicans, when you ask them, they've really downplayed this, and they've said this is on the margins. Permitting reform is something that Democrats and Republicans have been trying to strike a deal on for a long time, and they say this gets at the margins. It is certainly in the package.

Brian Lehrer: What did you mean by shielding them from litigation?

Kelsey Brugger: Currently, an environmental group or citizens can sue against a project that maybe is in their backyard. There's a judicial review period that's up to six years. Depending on if this goes through, this could get rid of that.

Brian Lehrer: Make it harder to sue over environmental or alleged environmental damage. Besides the disregard for the environment, I imagine that would even disadvantage smaller fossil fuel companies over larger ones. This pay to play, pay a big fee and you can skirt environmental review, it would disadvantage smaller fossil fuel companies as opposed to larger ones that have the deep corporate pockets to pay those high fees. At least that popped into my head. Do you have any sense of whether that specific line is being objected to by any companies that may be smaller ones?

Kelsey Brugger: Certainly. I've heard that argument from Earthjustice attorneys who have said this isn't the mom-and-pop oil companies we're talking about.

Brian Lehrer: Are there mom-and-pop oil companies? Is that even a thing?

Kelsey Brugger: [chuckles] The independent producers that-

Brian Lehrer: [luaghs]

Kelsey Brugger: -that might exist in Texas or the Permian Basin. I've definitely heard that argument, that this would be because we're talking about millions of dollars for this fee. I have definitely heard that concern.

Brian Lehrer: Your latest article is called Some Republicans are Angry about Climate Law Cuts: Will they Tank the GOP Mega Bill? Kelsey, why would Republicans who downplay climate threats be angry about climate law cuts?

Kelsey Brugger: For months now, we've heard from a group of maybe a couple of dozen Republicans who've signaled their interest in protecting parts of the Democrats' 2022 climate law that included hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits for wind and solar and other renewable technologies. As these projects get up and running, many of them are in Republican districts all across the country bringing jobs. At least the investments have been made. We've heard from Republicans who say, "Hey, we don't need to just gut the entire bill." That's certainly the posture of some of the hardliners who want a full repeal of what the president likes to call the Green New Scam.

Congressman Garbarino from New York has been one of those who have said, "Hey, let's be thoughtful about this. Let's do a phase down." They have proposed various timelines. They have been unhappy with what the Republican package as is comes up with. They have voiced concerns, but there's a lot of warring factions right now. House Speaker Mike Johnson has been hosting a lot of different meetings from a lot of folks.

You have hardliners calling for deeper cuts. You have moderates who are concerned about Medicaid changes. You have folks who are concerned about state and local income tax deductions. There's been a question mark that has been, will these Republicans who say they care about climate change, say they care about these clean energy projects, would they actually tank this big bill over this? This is something that is a big priority for President Donald Trump.

I'm on the the Hill today, Capitol Hill, and he is here to talk to Republicans who have a lot of different ideas about what they want to see in this bill. Something that I've been been doing for a few weeks has been asking members like Congressman Garborino if this is a red line for him. It's going to be showtime pretty soon here. If this bill ends up on the House floor, which could happen in the coming days, it has to clear the Rules Committee.

Brian Lehrer: That's coming up overnight tonight. We'll come back to that. Let me focus on Garbarino for a minute. One of our local Republican members of Congress, Andrew Garbarino from Long Island, who in your article said the bill as it's coming together is, "Not as bad as I thought it was going to be, but it's still pretty bad." I wonder if you can localize that at all, say what might be at stake on Long Island, or is it the same as what you said in your last answer?

Kelsey Brugger: I think he's concerned about projects more broadly. I know there's some offshore wind projects in New York. I think also on Long Island, there's also could be the onshore operations units that could create jobs. I think this is something that he has talked about. He's part of this bipartisan climate solutions caucus. For him, he's hoping to see some technical changes to this bill that I think will make renewables companies able to access these credits for a longer period of time. Basically, as written, some of the moderates are saying that it's unworkable.

Even though, at first glance, it looks like the proposal currently allows for this compromise, this phase down, it actually would be really difficult for developers to access them. There's a provision that's about transferability. This starts to get a little technical and weedy, for sure, but basically would allow a project sponsor to transfer a tax credit to a third party to reduce their liability to extend the life of these projects.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting, being able to buy or sell or trade tax credits. Another story in the news today, and you just hinted at it, it's both a national story and a local story, is that, listeners, maybe you've heard this or not yet, the Trump administration reversed itself yesterday and decided to allow that really big wind energy farm to be built off the coast of Long Island.

The New York Times says it's designed to produce enough energy to provide power to 500,000 homes. Trump had recently canceled the approval for that project because he's so anti-wind energy in general. I see Governor Hochul is taking credit for pushing the president for months to allow the wind farm to continue to be built. Maybe, Kelsey, this is also part of a deal for Long Island Republicans votes on the budget, Garbarino, LaLota. Do you know anything about that one way or another?

Kelsey Brugger: It's funny you say that because I was just talking to someone, and we're wondering what that kind of a deal might have looked like. I don't know. That's something that I'm probably going to spend the next couple of days asking around about. Definitely, really interesting and surprising news there.

Brian Lehrer: You mentioned that Garbarino is co-chair of the House Bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, but, as I'm sure you know, former Long Island Republican Congressman Lee Zeldin was in that bipartisan caucus too. Now he's Trump's EPA chief. Apparently, he's doing everything he can to roll back climate rules. Is the House bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus a functioning body at this point, according to your reporting on The Hill, or has its search for bipartisan climate solutions collapsed because the Republicans have basically canceled climate policy as a thing at all under Trump?

Kelsey Brugger: Critics have long said that it just gives these moderates and swing states political cover, and said that they haven't really done that much. With Lee Zeldin in particular, he, over the years of his time in the House, I think, was known as a moderate on this issue. Of course, as the head of EPA, he has been on Fox News a lot. He's been pretty aggressive in actions he's wanted to do in terms of environmental rollbacks. He's created these videos about $20 billion worth of gold bars, it's been tied up in court, that he's been fighting with green groups over climate grants.

We have seen this intense rightward shift from Lee Zeldin on this issue. Some of his critics have said, "I hope he doesn't want to run for office again in New York just because he's really positioned himself in the MAGA universe." I don't know the future of the Republican climate movement from here. It's definitely something I'll be paying attention to.

Brian Lehrer: Your article in Politico's E&E, Energy and Environment News, gives at least two examples of why House Republicans might cave on the issue of green energy tax credits, even if they're good economically for their districts. One comes from Georgia Congressman Buddy Carter, whose district includes a car and battery plant that benefits from those tax credits. You say Carter has been unapologetically protective of that plant, but now he's running for the Senate and hoping for Trump's endorsement, so he says the green energy tax credits are not a red line for him.

Back to Long Island, where you say Republican Congressman Nick LaLota has previously called for preserving some of those credits but is now choosing to prioritize the so-called salt tax deduction, which he wants the president to restore as a tax break. The way it sounds, it's like green energy might be good economically for many red districts, but it's just not a big enough priority to move the budget bill. Would you say there's a basic tension here for Republicans between standing for the argument that climate isn't actually a serious threat and supporting green energy programs because they're good for their local economies?

Kelsey Brugger: I think that it's difficult because you hear Republicans talk about this, and a lot of times, Democrats say they're just paying lip service to all of the above energy projects, and that it's not something that's really a priority for them where you have Democrats out on the House floor talking about climate change as an existential crisis. Republicans have approached it from maybe a business mindset, a free market mindset as wind and solar have become more abundant and cheaper.

Energy issues are really difficult. You don't have a lot of constituents necessarily calling up every day to talk to their member about energy issues, about how the lights turn on. That's not necessarily true for healthcare or something like Medicaid.

Brian Lehrer: Last thing. I've been hearing in the news that the House Rules Committee is going to convene at 1:00 AM, one in the morning this coming night, to do what's called a markup plus set the rules for the rest of the debate on the budget. Democrats say that's to hide from the American people that they're taking healthcare away from babies and things like that. Republicans say, "No, it's just because we're trying to actually pass the bill before the Memorial Day weekend, Friday," and they need those hours to go through all the steps. In any case, last thing, anything you'll be looking for on your climate and energy beat to see if it gets slipped in there in the middle of the night?

Kelsey Brugger: Yes. The conservatives have been meeting with House Speaker Mike Johnson in recent days and pushing him to actually accelerate the timelines for phasing out these credits even sooner. They want this full repeal. We're expecting to see new, potentially updated text tonight maybe around midnight. We'll definitely be looking to see these Inflation Reduction Act tax credit programs, what changes they make. Some of it could be small, minor language changes, but could have a big impact.

Brian Lehrer: I guess we have something to talk about in our lead segment of tomorrow's show if they're going to do all this stuff in the middle of the night. Somebody's got to reveal to the public what it is. Kelsey Brugger, who covers energy and climate politics on Capitol Hill for Politico's E&E News, Energy and Environment News. Thanks a lot for filling us in on all this, Kelsey. Thanks.

Kelsey Brugger: Thank you so much for having me.

Brian Lehrer: That's our Health and Climate Tuesday section of the show for this week. We'll keep it up as a safe space for making sure we keep you informed about the health and climate policy changes coming so fast and furious out of Washington. Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Up next, today's 10-question quiz with Brian Lehrer Show baseball caps and public radio nerd mugs as prizes. Also, NPR's Nina Totenberg. Stay with us.

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.