CLIMATE CHANGE HAS LESS TO DO WITH MIDTERMS THAN ACTIVISTS LEAD ON: Climate change is getting crowded out by other issues among voters' priorities in Tuesday’s midterm elections, with a sizable majority saying the issue won't influence their vote, according to year-long polling data.

At best, climate change is just one of many issues that voters are aware of, and will consider, as they vote.

At worst, it won’t have anything to do with how citizens vote on Tuesday, according to ongoing polling results from Reuters.

The vast majority are not voting based on environmental issues: In answering whether climate change, or the environment, will motivate one's vote in an election, 84 percent said “no,” while 16 percent said "yes," according to the poll that began a year ago and continues through the election. Over 18,000 voters have responded to the poll so far.

Climate issues are rarely a big motivator: "It always polls very low and people tend to care much more about higher profile issues like the economy, taxes, healthcare, and immigration,” said Frank Maisano, a principal at the law firm Bracewell, who represents clients in the energy and environment space.

“I am sure It may have some residual impact in some areas, but for the most part, it will be insignificant,” Maisano added.

Where does climate matter? Climate and environment will factor into the midterms in the form of ballot initiatives in a few key state elections on Tuesday, with Colorado’s ban on fracking measure and Washington state’s carbon tax being perhaps the two most prominent ones.

Canada, OAS try to rekindle climate leadership: Meanwhile, the Organization of American States led by Canada are holding an all-day climate change conference in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.

The focus of the meeting is on how to make climate change a “priority” in the Americas, which has come into stark focus under the Trump administration.

At the conference, Canada appears to be the leader when it comes to assembling the the rest of the Americas to pull together a plan with Caribbean and South American governments.

TRUMP’S TRY, TRY AGAIN STRATEGY ON KIDS’ CLIMATE LAWSUIT: The Trump administration Monday night sent a message that it won’t give up until some court, somewhere, blocks a climate lawsuit being leveled against the government by children.

Trump administration lawyers are now asking an Oregon judge to stop the lawsuit from going to trial, after the Supreme Court decided on Friday that it would not stand in the way of the climate change lawsuit.

The administration wants Oregon District Court Judge Ann Aiken, who is directly involved in handling the case, to pause the lawsuit until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decides on whether the litigation should move forward, or stricken down with a “writ of mandamus.”

The high court directed the administration to take its case to the Ninth Circuit if it wants relief from the lawsuit.

What happens next? Aiken said on Monday that she would be meeting with the parties in the case at a scheduling conference on Thursday.

Aiken had dismissed the administration’s previous motions to dismiss the case last month. Aiken was supposed to preside over oral argument in the case on Oct. 29 before the Supreme Court stepped in to review the case, putting the trial on hold.

The kids’ climate lawsuit argues that the government complicit in exacerbating climate change, which will harm the well-being and futures of the youth and generations to come.

Welcome to Daily on Energy, compiled by Washington Examiner Energy and Environment Writers John Siciliano (@JohnDSiciliano) and Josh Siegel (@SiegelScribe). Email dailyonenergy@washingtonexaminer.com for tips, suggestions, calendar items and anything else. If a friend sent this to you and you’d like to sign up, click here. If signing up doesn’t work, shoot us an email and we’ll add you to our list.

ENERGY AND CLIMATE ISSUES WE’RE WATCHING DURING TODAY’S ELECTION:

Ballot measures-

*Washington state could be the first in the nation to enact a voter-approved carbon tax to combat climate change. The plan would require fossil-fuel companies to pay $15 per ton of carbon dioxide they release into the atmosphere, beginning in 2020. That rate would rise $2 a year until 2035, reaching around $55 per ton. The carbon pricing proposal will appear on the ballot as a fee, not a tax, to make the initiative more appealing to voters, and for technical reasons.

Money earned from the fee — roughly $1 billion annually by 2023 — would be spent on clean-energy and climate change resilience projects, such as wind and solar plants, mass transit, and energy-efficiency improvements to buildings.

*Colorado voters will have a chance to decide whether to block drilling in most of one of America’s largest oil- and gas-producing states. Colorado’s ballot initiative would ban new oil and gas drilling within 2,500 feet of homes, schools, and “vulnerable areas” such as playgrounds, to respond to complaints from communities close to fracking who say wells are increasingly encroaching on populated areas.

A state analysis shows that if the measure passed, it would block new oil and gas wells on 85 percent of nonfederal land in the state. Only New York, Maryland, and Vermont have banned fracking. But those states don’t have reserves like Colorado, which is America’s fifth-largest gas-producing and seventh-largest oil-producing state.

* Californians will vote on a ballot proposition that would kill recent hikes to state gas taxes and vehicle fees enacted in 2017 that fund road repairs and mass transit projects. If it passes, the measure would also require voter approval for any future gas tax increases.

*Two ballot initiatives funded by liberal activist Tom Steyer’s NextGen America would increase the percentage of renewable electricity mandated in Arizona and Nevada.

Climate Solutions Caucus members face reckoning at the ballot: The bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, seen as a refuge for moderate House Republicans who care about combating global warming, could look markedly different based on today’s election results.

The caucus is currently made up of 90 members, split equally between Republican and Democrats.

The math looks bad: The group’s co-chairman, Rep. Carlos Curbelo, R-Fla., is in a toss-up race in district that Hillary Clinton won handily. Curbelo introduced a carbon tax bill this year, and other Republicans in the caucus view him as their leader. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., one of two co-sponsors of Curbelo’s carbon tax bill, is also in a toss-up race, as defined by Cook Political Report. Indeed, at least 16 (more than a third) of Republicans in the climate caucus are in races rated toss up or worse (hat tip to Politico’s Anthony Adragna), a reflection of the moderate districts they represent.

Eight current GOP members of the caucus, meanwhile, are retiring, including Reps. Ryan Costello, of Pennsylvania, Darrell Issa of California, and Mark Sanford of South Carolina. Just seven Republican climate caucus members are in districts rated safe.

Why the caucus matters: While skeptics of the climate caucus have accused it of greenwashing, providing cover for vulnerable Republicans, losing these moderate members could have serious repercussions for the prospects of passing climate-related bills in a Congress that will likely remain divided.

Indeed, some climate advocates are questioning whether the caucus will even have a reason to exist -- or have enough Republican to keep it going -- if Democrats win the House.

READ more of Josh and John’s pre-election coverage:

Colorado fracking measure splits Democrats

Washington state voters could be the first to approve a carbon tax

More and more Democrats are running on a total phaseout of fossil fuels

Republicans learn to love wind and solar jobs after once mocking them

Wolf staves off green howling to dominate race in fracking state

TRUMP TAKES EARLY VICTORY LAP ON IRAN OIL SANCTIONS: President Trump took an early victory lap Monday as his administration’s oil sanctions on Iran went into effect without spiking crude prices, as many analysts feared would happen.

"I could get the Iran oil down to zero immediately, but it would cause a shock to the market,” Trump told reporters. “I don't want to lift oil prices. As you’ve noticed, oil prices are down very substantially despite the fact that already half of [Iran’s] capacity is gone.”

The State Department confirmed Monday morning that it is exempting seven countries and Taiwan from oil sanctions on Iran, allowing them to continue buying Iranian crude, at least temporarily, with the expectation that they eventually move to zero imports.

Still, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Iran’s oil exports have already fallen a total of 1 million barrels per day even before the imposition of sanctions. Oil prices have fallen to the low $70s after breaching $85 per barrel last month.

Trump should not spike the football yet: But oil market experts expect the price to rise after the midterms if the Trump administration successfully negotiates with most of the exempted countries to stop importing from Iran.

“The falling price is potentially a temporary phenomenon if they still try to drive Iran to zero oil exports next year,” Richard Nephew, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, told Josh. “There just isn't enough oil. If you take another million off the market, you are going into spare capacity, and it will have a real impact on prices.”

RICK PERRY’S WORDS OF WISDOM: Energy Secretary Rick Perry took to Twitter on Monday to voice his agreement with Trump on taking actions to sanction Iran’s energy industry, saying U.S. oil producers, in addition to Saudi Arabia, will aid in shoring up the lost supply from Iran.

“The new sanctions will hit Iran’s energy sector hard,” he tweeted. “But thanks to anticipatory actions taken by the world’s leading producers, including the U.S., to make up the difference, there should be minimal effect on global energy markets.”