Trump rejects uranium import restrictions Presented by Chevron

With help from Gavin Bade

Editor's Note: This edition of Morning Energy is published weekdays at 10 a.m. POLITICO Pro Energy subscribers hold exclusive early access to the newsletter each morning at 6 a.m. Learn more about POLITICO Pro's comprehensive policy intelligence coverage, policy tools and services at politicopro.com.

Quick Fix


— The president announced he would not restrict uranium imports, and instead ordered the creation of a working group to look for other ways to help the industry.

— The House's passage of its annual defense bill sets up a tough negotiation with the Senate over measures to address toxic PFAS contamination, not to mention climate vulnerability and carbon capture.

— EPA could as soon as this week unveil a new proposal that would curtail community members' use of an agency appeals panel, according to a new report.

GOOD MORNING! IT'S MONDAY. I'm your host, Kelsey Tamborrino. R Street's William Murray gets the trivia win. Four national parks units are located north of the Arctic Circle, two of which — Alaska's Gates of the Arctic and Kobuk Valley — are National Parks. The other two are Cape Krusenstern National Monument and Noatak National Preserve. For today: How many former presidents switched from the Whig Party and were elected as Republicans? Send your tips, energy gossip and comments to [email protected].

Driving the Day

TRUMP SAYS NO TO URANIUM IMPORT RESTRICTIONS: President Donald Trump delivered a blow to two uranium mining companies but gave relief to nuclear power plant operators late Friday by announcing he would not restrict uranium imports in order to guarantee U.S. mining companies a larger share of the American market for nuclear fuel, Pro's Alex Guillén and Doug Palmer report.

The two mining companies, Ur-Energy USA and Energy Fuels Resources, contend that imports are pushing U.S. uranium production to the brink of collapse, and asked the Trump administration to impose a quota requiring that 25 percent of domestic uranium consumption be met by U.S. producers, as Pro's Darius Dixon reported.

Trump's Friday decision not to do so is at odds with a Commerce Department determination that the uranium imports pose a national security risk. Trump instead wrote in a memo that he did not concur with the secretary's finding, but said "a fuller analysis of national security considerations with respect to the entire nuclear fuel supply chain is necessary at this time."

Trump ordered the formation of a Nuclear Fuel Working Group to look for ways to "reinvigorate the entire nuclear fuel supply chain," with a particular focus on defense needs, which will be co-chaired by national security adviser John Bolton and economic adviser Larry Kudlow.

Weighing in: The Ad Hoc Utilities Group in a statement said it was "pleased" with the determination. "It is clear the Trump administration recognizes the enormous economic and resiliency benefits that the U.S. nuclear energy industry provides to Americans," the group said.

But Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso called the announcement a "missed opportunity" for uranium producers, who "deserve to compete on a level playing field." Barrasso added in a statement: "America should not rely on Vladimir Putin and his satellites to supply our uranium. It's dangerous and unacceptable." (More than 20 Republican lawmakers made a similar argument in a letter Friday.)

Speaking of: Some environmentalists and Democrats, like House Natural Resources Chairman Raúl Grijalva, have pointed to uranium mining near the Grand Canyon as cause for environmental concern. Two related bills sponsored by Grijalva — H.R. 1373 (116), the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act and H.R. 3405 (116), the Removing Uranium from the Critical Minerals List Act — will be marked up Wednesday.

On the Hill

ON TO CONFERENCE: The annual defense policy bill, H.R. 2500 (116), passed Friday by the House now heads to conference, where lawmakers will have to work out their differences and overcome objections from the White House — particularly on toxic PFAS contamination.

Both chambers have passed wide-ranging legislative packages on PFAS chemicals in their respective defense authorization bills, Pro's Annie Snider reports, but they are split on key elements such as whether to set enforceable limits for some or all of the chemicals in drinking water or to declare them hazardous under Superfund law.

Keep an eye out: Drinking water is not addressed in the House defense measure, but it could be part of a separate PFAS package being negotiated by leaders on the Energy and Commerce Committee. House lawmakers say they hope any package E&C produces could be used in negotiations between the House and Senate over final legislation that is part of the defense bill.

E&C ranking member Greg Walden made clear the E&C Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee, led by Democratic Rep. Paul Tonko and Republican John Shimkus, is working on the issue. "We will act, we will protect communities from any hazards or contamination, but we need to get it right," he added. "We hear it too often, but allowing regular order to continue so the committee can have good-faith discussions is important."

What else? The House's Natural Defense Authorization Act would also authorize a program to develop technologies that capture carbon dioxide from seawater and air and turn that into clean fuels. And it would require the Defense secretary to develop a climate vulnerability and risk assessment tool to help provide standardized risk calculations of climate-related impacts to military facilities.

FOR YOUR RADAR: The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a massive business meeting Tuesday morning. The panel will tackle several closely watched energy measures like Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)'s bill, S. 1685 (116), to require the Department of Energy to establish a carbon capture technology research program, and S. 903 (116), the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act — Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)'s bill that would bring together the private and public sectors to develop next-generation advanced reactor technology.

Around the Agencies

REPORT: EPA RULE WOULD CURTAIL APPEALS BOARD: The Trump administration as soon as this week could make public a proposed rule to eliminate the ability for community members or advocates to appeal an EPA pollution permit to its Environmental Appeals Board made up of administrative judges, sources tell The New York Times. The proposal would weaken a rule that has given communities a voice in how much pollution can be legally released near power plants for the past quarter-century, the Times writes.

But the rule would still allow industry permit-holders to appeal to the panel to allow them to increase their pollution. Industry lawyers told the newspaper the proposed change would get rid of red tape and would speed up the process that is ultimately decided by courts. The draft plan as described to the Times by three people familiar with the document has mostly been completed and once announced would be open for public comment.

ACTIVISTS PROTEST LaFLEUR: Anti-fossil fuel activists from the group Beyond Extreme Energy on Saturday staged a protest outside the Wellesley, Mass., home of FERC Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur, pressuring the outgoing Democrat to oppose new natural gas infrastructure. LaFleur, who will step down from FERC next month, has pressed her colleagues to expand their consideration of climate change impacts for gas pipelines and export facilities, but has voted for some major projects when Republicans on FERC have acquiesced. Activists last targeted LaFleur and other activists for protests at their homes in 2016, and on Saturday unfurled a banner saying "You can't be neutral on a burning planet." FERC is scheduled to consider one pipeline at its next open meeting Thursday.

2020 Watch

ONE-ON-ONE WITH JAY INSLEE: Washington Gov. Jay Inslee spoke to POLITICO as part of a series of interviews with 2020 Democrats, where he addressed the climate conversation among his Democratic counterparts, why he got in the race and his thoughts on Tom Steyer's recent bid for president, among other topics.

The Washington Democrat also spoke at length on his call to get rid of the filibuster. "My opponents, the other aspirants in the race, have really sincere, powerful things they want to get done," he said. "None of which we have a chance in Hell at getting done if they continue to cling to this filibuster."

Inslee's belief that the filibuster needs to go, like almost everything else in his campaign, POLITICO's Daniel Strauss writes, is rooted in his focus on climate change. Inslee added that framing climate change as a route for new job creation would appeal to American voters. "These jobs are everywhere in the United States. This is not just a San Francisco deal," Inslee said. "Some people think, when they hear 'clean energy,' just solar panels, and they think just physicists. No: It's people with a hammer and a saw, [retrofitting buildings]. So that's a jobs message."

Related: Inslee also spoke on some lighter issues.

Report Roundup

HOW A CLIMATE POLICY WOULD HIT COAL MUNICIPALITIES: As U.S. coal production decreases, even "a moderately stringent climate policy" could create existential risks for the coal industry, according to new research released this morning from Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy and the Brookings Institution.

The report on the fiscal exposure of coal-dependent municipal governments found that such a policy would mean potential declines in coal production of around 75 percent in the 2020s. For the 26 U.S. counties classified as "coal mining dependent" that produce the majority of U.S. coal, the decline may threaten their ability to fund school systems, provide other basic public services or repay outstanding municipal bonds, the report found.

The Grid

— "Trump administration freezing fuel efficiency penalties," via Reuters.

— "Hurricane Barry's rain and floods hammer Gulf environment," via the Associated Press.

— "The New Republic drops out of climate forum amid backlash over offensive piece on Pete Buttigieg," via Slate.

— "Climate change is making hurricanes like Barry wetter And more dangerous," via BuzzFeed News.

— "Climate hawks fear Tom Steyer's presidential run could backfire," via Washington Examiner.

THAT'S ALL FOR ME!

Follow us on Twitter Matt Daily @dailym1



Kelsey Tamborrino @kelseytam



Anthony Adragna @anthonyadragna



Gavin Bade @gavinbade



Zack Colman @zcolman



Alex Guillen @alexcguillen



Ben Lefebvre @bjlefebvre



Annie Snider @annelizabeth18



Eric Wolff @ericwolff