Category: Headlines

Just In | The Hill 

Progressives are leaving 2022 riding high. This year, liberals pushed President Biden to the left, passed legislation in line with their philosophy and expanded their united bargaining power in Congress.

In Washington’s ever-changing expectations game, however, 2023 is sure to bring a fair amount of uncertainty to the Democratic Party’s left flank.

While Biden has shown a desire to embrace much of what drives liberals, the new year will test how far he is willing to depart from his moderate tendencies from the Oval Office.

On Capitol Hill, progressives will have to adjust to a new GOP House, notably without a natural standard-bearer leading their own side’s movement.

And in the judiciary, they’re preparing for court challenges to some of their biggest agenda items.

All that is set to play out as speculation mounts over whether Biden, 80, will run for a second term as president. 

Here are the left’s 5 biggest unknowns for 2023:

1. Biden’s 2024 plans

Nothing will have a bigger impact on progressives’ plans for the future than the president’s decision on whether or not to seek reelection.

If there were doubts over Biden’s general fly-under-the-radar strategy, November quieted the naysayers. For months, while Democrats bemoaned the president and his administration’s approach to the midterms, the White House stuck to its course, keeping with the same game plan that Biden had seen work successfully in the past, such as when he was down in the 2020 Democratic primary before sweeping to victory.

Even as Biden’s approval ratings dipped lower and lower, Biden officials warned that issues such as protecting democracy and abortion access were equally important, and that they could offer a message that resonated in swing areas and even build on reach states such as Georgia if they could convince voters that they can deliver results. 

The party’s relative success during the elections — better than many anticipated and other past cycles — is a convincing reason to believe that Biden, who has repeatedly said he intends to run again in 2024, will go through with it.

But things can change. If an unforeseeable event causes Biden to rethink a second term, an ensuing Democratic presidential primary would shine a bright light on progressive policies.

And to be sure, possible Democratic hopefuls are expected to keep up with the preliminary planning they started this year, while working with the administration as an ally —  for now. 

2. Biden’s appetite for shifting further left

Progressives have a degree of skepticism around Biden’s ability to adapt to the changing tides of his party. Things didn’t look so good for the left when Build Back Better, the expansive social safety net package, was being fought over by moderates and progressives in both chambers of Congress, with Biden often siding with key centrists. 

But if 2021 was rife with doubt about where Biden stands, 2022 was the year of answers. The self-proclaimed moderate proved capable of gliding left on issues including student loan debt and climate change and ultimately signed the massive Inflation Reduction Act, with voters rewarding the party in power more than expected at the ballot box. 

Liberals in Congress are now hopeful they can get more out of the president through executive orders in 2023, particularly as they are about to learn what it means to govern in the minority in the House. They want to see him go bolder on the climate, immigration and tax reform, and to take on new fights around antitrust and prescription drug pricing, where the Congressional Progressive Caucus is expected to make their case with fervor. 

3. New dynamics in the House

Speaking of the House, there’s a new Democratic leader in the lower chamber who comes with a question mark.

Minority leader-in-waiting Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) has big shoes to fill from former longtime Speaker and caucus coraller Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).

Pelosi, a progressive, enjoyed a productive relationship with her party’s left wing, even when they butted heads over tactics and the practical limits of governance. 

Jeffries is, for now, more of an unknown.

Progressives are optimistic that he’ll work with them in a similar fashion, but there’s less of a personal history and kinship to go off of. They’ve been pleased that he seems willing to get off on the right foot, including talking with “squad” members early on, but some of his own past work and political leanings open up questions about which way he’ll ultimately side in the year’s inevitable intraparty squabbles. 

As a member of the progressive caucus, he’s often voted with their interests and hasn’t gone out of his way to antagonize the left like some House moderates. But his standing may be determined by his willingness to take on the bigger fights of the new year, when progressives have even more seats at the table and plan to use their expanded bench to push for issues where the two sides of the party don’t agree.

The new slate of members also comes with its own uncertainties. For now, it’s unknown how staunch left-wing incoming Democratic lawmakers, such as Reps.-elect Greg Cesar (Texas), Summer Lee (Pa.), and Maxwell Frost (Fla.) — who are diverse in age, gender, demographics and geography —will use their newfound power and influence in a minority position. 

4. Lack of progressive standard-bearer

Biden’s position at the top of the party has added new elements to the ongoing debate about the direction Democrats are heading in 2023 — and who might be poised to lead from the left. 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), progressives’ iconoclastic leader, is still a profound voice for their flank. But, like Biden, he’s part of a caucus that’s becoming younger and more diverse, and the same questions that haunt the president over longevity and bandwidth also plague the 81-year-old Sanders. 

With that in mind, it’s anyone’s guess who may adopt an elevated role as the unofficial leader for liberals in 2023.

Practically speaking, Sanders isn’t going anywhere. He’s set to take on a new assignment as chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, transitioning from his role overseeing the Budget Committee, and is expected to continue to push for his marquee positions such as Medicare for All. 

But other progressives are also sharing the spotlight. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) has put himself at the center of relevant debates around economics and what a more populist-progressive future could look like in the future. And newer members-elect, including Lee, Cesar, Frost, Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), and Becca Balint (D-Vt.), among others, are already planning to make noise. 

5. The courts

This year, the courts have had a massive impact on American politics, with the biggest earthquake being the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Roe v. Wade and undo decades of precedent protecting reproductive rights. 

One of the left’s signature accomplishments under Biden, an executive order to cancel large sums of federal student loan debt for thousands of people, is heading to the Supreme Court in late February. Justices will hear arguments about the president’s plan, which came after months of lobbying from advocates and progressive lawmakers who urged Biden to eliminate billions of dollars for struggling student borrowers. 

The conservative-majority court is also expected to hear arguments on immigration relating to Title 42, a policy held over from former President Trump’s administration that progressives insist must be reversed.  

And there’s always the possibility of a hypothetical Supreme Court opening, which could lead to a crazy free-for-all for both parties. 

Beyond that, Democrats had also pressured the Senate to confirm a host of judges that Biden nominated during his first term, worried that if the upper chamber went to Republican control during the midterms there would be effectively no shot at getting those seats filled. 

When Democrats increased their Senate majority by one, there was a sense of relief that there’s still time. But it’s an open question how many of those nominees will be secured and how strongly conservatives will push back.

​House, Administration, Blog Briefing Room Read More 

Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories 

On a recent Wednesday afternoon in mid-December, Peter Meijer shuffled around the Speaker’s Lobby in the U.S. Capitol, finding a spot near the crackling fireplace as a cold rain from a winter storm encased Washington. His one similarly stormy term in Congress was coming to a close. He had cleaned out his office back in October but he still had votes to cast, though none of them as consequential as the one that quite probably cost him his seat.

Meijer had been a freshman representative for all of three days when the Jan. 6, 2021 riot happened. Seven days later, he cast one of his first votes in favor of impeaching Donald Trump, who spent the next 19 months vowing revenge against Meijer and nine other GOP members who supported the effort to hold Trump accountable.

Meijer, 34, a former sergeant in the Army Reserves who served in Iraq, made reforming war powers and veterans issues his top legislative priorities. Four of his bills were signed into law, including establishing a Department of Homeland Security trade and economic security council. And he made an unauthorized trip to Afghanistan to help evacuate Americans and Afghans during the hurried military pullout in August 2021. That trip earned him a scolding from the White House and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But none of that compared to the onslaught from the ostensible leader of his own party, who backed Meijer’s primary challenger, John Gibbs, a Stanford-educated provocateur who pandered to Trump and peddled QAnon-style conspiracies. Gibbs ultimately lost to Democrat Hillary Scholten in the general election, just as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had hoped when it quietly promoted Gibbs’ extremist candidacy.

I spoke with Meijer as he ducked in and out of the House chamber to vote on a series of rule changes. Meijer and I spoke about whether he could ever again support Trump, the wayward direction of the Republican Party and whether he could envision a return to Washington.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.  

Adam Wren: How do you feel as your time in Congress comes to an end? 

Peter Meijer: Obviously bittersweet. There’s a lot of work that we were able to get done; but a lot more that we had hoped to be able to do. Being a freshman in the minority, you’re kind of fighting and running uphill. You’re trying to convince the majority to bring something to the floor.

A lot of other folks gauge their metrics by just bill introductions. Our goal was, if we’re going to be working on something, it should be toward the end of having it signed into law at the end of the day, rather than doing something only for messaging. I’m proud that the prior record for the number of bills signed into law by a freshman in the minority was at two, and now we’re at least four — I would argue five.

Wren: As a veteran who served in the U.S. Army Reserves in Iraq, and as an NGO operative in Afghanistan, one of your key goals was to reform the War Powers Act. How would you evaluate your progress on that?  

Meijer: I think we substantively advanced the issue in the National Security Performance and Accountability Act of 2021 that we introduced in the spring of last year. It was the most bipartisan, most thoroughly fleshed-out approach, including bicameral conversations and conversations with the White House. Obviously, we weren’t able to get that signed into law. But that’s also the type of long-term reform where you have to have an understanding and an expectation it will be probably chunked out with an idea of giving folks more comfortable, very substantive change.

Wren: What do you think your biggest accomplishment was in Congress?  

Meijer: Being part of the team that passed the Veterans Burn Pits Exposure Recognition Act of 2021. Folks who are suffering the consequences of that exposure can be diagnosed and treated and have better outcomes.

Wren: You said your departure from Washington and Congress is “bittersweet.” I take that to mean there is part of you that is happy to be leaving here.

Meijer: Definitely not on the policy side. I think one of the challenges on the politics side is you just have to spend a lot of time reacting in some areas where there may be valid concerns, but where the factual basis of those concerns is lacking.

Wren: Such as?  

Meijer: There was this big hubbub about these amendments to the World Health Organization’s pandemic preparedness. Everyone is worried that “our sovereignty is going to be stripped away; don’t do anything.” And half the time, you don’t really have any authority over that. But our sovereignty is not going to be infringed on by the World Health Organization.

Wren: You’re talking about a one-world government kind of conspiracy?

Meijer: There were initially amendments that were proposed by the Trump administration because of China’s lack of transparency. And then that led to a delay in the international response. It reminded me of the time my mom thought she saw a UFO in California; it took her 30 seconds: “I saw a UFO.” But it took me 45 minutes to figure out that it was a B-2 stealth bomber. It ends up not being the most productive exercise.

Wren: As the scion of the Meijer supermarket franchise, you could be next in line to take it over. Has there been recent talk about a succession plan?  

Meijer: I obviously have a deep love and a vested interest in the long-term success of our family business. But I think in the short term, my focus is much more policy.

Wren: You’re worth more than $50 million. What’s the biggest splurge you’ve made?  

Meijer: I don’t know if my Chevy Colorado counts. I also have a boat that I bought for $5,000 on Craigslist.

Wren: Will you go back to Michigan?  

Meijer: Oh, yeah. Michigan is home. I don’t have a visceral hatred of Washington that some do. It’s a place like any other. But it’s not home.

Wren: How would you describe the state of the Michigan Republican Party today, post-midterms? 

Meijer: Highly uncertain. The midterm elections were a bloodbath in the state. We lost control of the state house and the state senate for the first time in 40 years. We don’t have any prominent statewide elected offices at all. All the Democratic incumbents swept, obviously. West Michigan will have its first Democratic representation in Congress since Watergate. It’s a pretty bleak outcome. In a moment that should force a lot of introspection, I’ve seen a lot of folks who are responsible for the debacle only rising in stature.

Wren: Who? Republican gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon?  

Meijer: I think Tudor did the best with what she had. She was in a very unenviable position. And I think it was really unfair that the state party threw her under the bus. She was the only statewide candidate who was actually elected in a primary.

At the end of the day, there’s been such an echo chamber on the right. It doesn’t help [Michigan held] very late primaries. So everybody was just being forced to walk the tightrope, increasingly away from where the persuadable voters they needed were [ideologically]. And then incumbents don’t have that disadvantage.

Wren: Do you have a 2024 Republican presidential candidate in mind who you’d like to win?

Meijer: My strong bias is for a Republican nominee who could win.

Wren: Would you support Donald Trump if he were the nominee in 2024 after voting to impeach him last year?  

Meijer: I have no idea how I would do that.

Wren: No idea?  

Meijer: Yeah. I want someone to demonstrate a track record of being able to win. Hillary Clinton was probably the worst Democratic nominee of my lifetime. If he was outlining a positive agenda and speaking of the things that were started and hoping to be completed, if his message was about pointing the country in a better direction, it would be very different than what we have right now, which is just like the pettiest of petty grievances. I think he had a very negative impact on both candidate selection in terms of endorsements, but also just the amount of quality candidates in competitive seats. I think there’s a constructive role that he could be playing, and I have yet to see him make an effort, so to hell with it.

Wren: To hell with what?  

Meijer: With the idea of running at this moment [against other Trumpist candidates]. What is required from a purity test standpoint — folks know they need his endorsement, and then what they end up doing to get that endorsement ends up being disqualifying.

Wren: This dynamic played out with your Republican primary opponent, John Gibbs, the far-right conspiracy theorist who criticized women’s right to vote and propagated the idea that Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta participated in satanic rituals. Yet you went to a unity rally with him. That surprised me.  

Meijer: I was surprised at the media reaction to that. In my mind, not going to something like that is a sore loser move. The least I can do is wish him congratulations and best of luck. It’s funny there were a lot of kind of anti-Trump and Never Trump folks who trashed me for that. I was like, “Oh, do you want me to act the same way [Trump] did? Do you want me to deny that I lost? Do you want me to be a sore loser? Come on.”

Wren: You were upset about the Democrats interfering in your primary by boosting your challenger.

Meijer: I don’t know that I’d say upset. The hypocrisy was so transcendent, just the cynicism. I think my rule of thumb is Republicans should probably not pick the person the Democrats want to be the candidate. If the Democratic incumbent is popping a bottle of champagne when they realize who their opponent is going to be, we probably didn’t make the right choice.

Wren: Would you run for the seat again in 2024?  

Meijer: I’m not going to foreclose any possibility.

Wren: You took an unauthorized trip to Afghanistan with Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton, a fellow veteran, to Kabul in August of last year during the chaotic withdrawal of troops. It was widely criticized. The White House, the Pentagon and Speaker Nancy Pelosi said your presence there diverted from the withdrawal mission. Do you have any regrets?

Meijer: If I have a regret, it’s that we probably could have been there for a week and nobody would have known. The only reason why they were aware is because I thought the right thing to do was to just kind of announce ourselves, don’t ask for any support to take up any resources, contrary to a lot of the White House trying to tar and feather us out of their own sense of embarrassment.

I just think back to talking to some of the folks who were on the ground, they were like, “It’s awesome you came.” They just felt like they were working in this crucible.

Wren: Your office, by virtue of your NGO and veteran experience, became a command center in helping to get people out. How many did you help evacuate?   

Meijer: We’ve gone back and forth on whether or how we can quantify that. It was very much a team effort. Our office handled thousands of cases. And we’re still working on casework for those who are back here.  

Wren: Do you ever wonder if all the events of your life might have been leading up to that specific moment?  

Meijer: It is hard to imagine how I could have been better positioned to try to make the maximum impact. This is why I’m continuing to stay engaged on Afghanistan. It’s rare for somebody who worked in Afghanistan to be in Congress. It’s even more rare for somebody who worked and lived by themselves in downtown Kandahar City — I just have a unique perspective and personal network.

Wren: Where do you think the Trump fixation in the Republican Party is headed?  

Meijer: I think in a lot of the media there’s such a Trump fixation. He tapped into something that predated him and that will remain after him. In some places, he delivered, but the positive-to-negative ratio started to shift pretty dramatically, giving into some of the most unchecked impulses. We don’t really have the moderating effect of the water cooler in American life, right, where you’re like, ‘I think this thing is important out there.’ I don’t think there’s a race of lizard people who are controlling our lives.

My frustration is [conspiracy theories] lead folks on the right to go down these rabbit holes and chase their own tails. Meanwhile, some of the really serious, severe things that are critical for us to get ready for the future of the country: competing with China, dealing with our deficit, dealing with entitlement reforms. These are not easy things that we can like, manage in bite-sized chunks.

So much of the energy is ultimately expended down avenues that are just hamster wheels. I think that gives Democrats a tangible advantage. We saw that electorally, when they can at least pretend to be speaking to issues and not seem crazy, even if they are unwilling to change their policy outcomes that are not making those issues better. At least rhetorically, they seem to be coming from a more reality-grounded place.

​ Read More 

Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories 

The lack of specialized Covid-19 treatments for people with weak immune systems has left millions of Americans with limited options if they get sick as the pandemic heads into an uncertain winter.

Once heralded as game-changers for Covid patients considered at risk for getting seriously ill — one was used to treat then-President Donald Trump in 2020 — monoclonal antibodies are now largely ineffective against current Covid variants. Easier-to-administer antiviral drugs, such as Paxlovid, have largely taken their place but aren’t safe for all immune-compromised people because they interact with many other drugs.

But the federal government funding that drove drug development in the early days of the pandemic has dried up, and lawmakers have rebuffed the Biden administration’s pleas for more. Without that, there’s little incentive for drugmakers to work on new antibody treatments that could be more effective.

And without a government program like Operation Warp Speed to develop second-generation vaccines and treatments, at-risk patients could be in danger of developing severe cases of Covid and flooding hospitals when the U.S. health care system is already strained, thanks to an influx of patients with an array of respiratory illnesses, including flu and RSV.

“Just because we have exited the emergency phase of the pandemic does not mean that Covid is over or that it no longer poses a danger,” said Leana Wen, a public health professor at George Washington University and former Baltimore health commissioner. “There are millions of Americans who are vulnerable to severe illness.”

The FDA pulled authorizations for four antibody treatments in 2022 as Omicron and its myriad subvariants wiped out their effectiveness. The treatments were geared toward adult and pediatric patients with mild-to-moderate Covid who were considered at risk of developing severe disease and ending up hospitalized.

While antiviral pills are plentiful and remain an option for some with weak immune systems, they won’t work for everyone — Pfizer’s Paxlovid interacts with many widely prescribed drugs.

Monoclonal antibodies — which have been made by companies like Regeneron, Eli Lilly and Vir — are lab-created molecules designed to block a virus’ entry into human cells. But they must bind to the virus’ spike protein to neutralize it, and the coronavirus’ many mutations since its 2019 emergence have gradually rendered the available products ineffective.

“It’s a bit risky to develop this,” said Arturo Casadevall of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, pointing to how quickly some Covid variants have surfaced before quickly receding.

A massive spending bill that lawmakers passed before Christmas left out the administration’s $9 billion request for more money to fight the pandemic, meaning there are fewer dollars to be spread around to address emerging Covid needs.

“Due to congressional inaction and a lack of funding, HHS does not have the resources it needs to fund the development of new treatments, and we could find ourselves with a very limited medicine cabinet at a time when we need more tools to combat Covid-19,” a department spokesperson told POLITICO, adding that HHS is working with providers and other groups “to ensure that Americans are able to take advantage of all available treatment options.”

The Biden administration has strongly promoted oral antiviral regimens like Paxlovid, which debuted a year ago and marked a turning point in managing the virus for most Americans.

Immunocompromised individuals — who are either born with immune-suppressing conditions or acquire them after organ transplants or by taking certain drugs — also may not mount sufficient immune responses after vaccination, making treatment options like antibody therapies a critical tool for them.

A CDC alert issued Dec. 20 to clinicians and public health professionals warned of the lack of viable monoclonal antibody treatments — including the diminished efficacy of a prophylactic antibody, Evusheld — and the availability of the antiviral options that to date have seen lackluster uptake. The agency urged providers to consult the National Institutes of Health’s Covid treatment guidelines for ways to potentially manage drug interactions with Paxlovid, such as temporary pauses or reductions in dose.

Remdesivir, an antiviral administered intravenously, is another treatment option for the immunocompromised, but it requires infusions over three days in either hospital or outpatient settings. HHS is urging states to support its health departments and systems in setting up infusion clinics to expand access to remdesivir, especially on an outpatient basis, and is working with maker Gilead to broaden the types of providers eligible to buy the drug.

Covid convalescent plasma remains an option for immunocompromised people who contract the virus, but its availability is scattershot across the country, Casadevall said. The treatment has pros and cons, he said — it’s less likely to be defeated by any one variant and can adapt to different strains, but it’s difficult to administer and requires blood-typing to be done for the recipient.

Still, Casadevall said, the main issue is educational because its use has changed since the pandemic’s early days, when treatments were scarce. Some hospital systems, like Hopkins, use it routinely, while some doctors don’t know plasma is still an option, he said.

The FDA has authorized the emergency use of convalescent plasma containing high Covid antibody levels for immunocompromised patients. But NIH has remained neutral on the treatment in that population, which Janet Handal, president of the Transplant Recipients and Immunocompromised Patient Advocacy Group, says has led to some hospitals balking at administering it.

NIH spokesperson Renate Myles pointed to the agency’s treatment guidelines for Covid, which are developed by an expert panel.

The recommendations for Covid convalescent plasma, last updated on Dec. 1, say there’s “insufficient evidence” to recommend for or against the treatment’s use in immunocompromised patients, while noting some panel members would use plasma to treat an immunocompromised person “with significant symptoms attributable to COVID-19 and with signs of active [viral] replication and who is having an inadequate response to available therapies.”

“In these cases, clinicians should attempt to obtain high-titer [Covid convalescent plasma] from a vaccinated donor who recently recovered from Covid-19 likely caused by a … variant similar to the variant causing the patient’s illness,” the guidelines say.

Casadevall, who leads the Covid-19 Convalescent Plasma Project, says NIH’s stance on plasma is inconsistent with its previous recommendations of monoclonal antibodies, which were made without clinical efficacy data, since Covid antibodies are the active component in both therapies. He led a petition earlier this month — signed by several doctors, including past and current presidents of the Infectious Diseases Society of America — asking NIH to change its recommendations.

Handal’s group also has asked the NIH and the White House to convene a meeting with scientists on the issue.

“To just not be having a dialogue about it is infuriating to us,” Handal said. “People are dying while people are just going through this bureaucratic dance.”

The FDA and European Medicines Agency held a virtual workshop this month to bring doctors, industry and regulators together to discuss supporting novel monoclonal antibody treatments.

“The FDA is committed to working with industry sponsors to expedite the development of new drug products to meet unmet needs, such as the need for new preventive therapies for immune-suppressed patients who are unlikely to respond to vaccination,” an agency spokesperson said.

In the meantime, Regeneron spokesperson Tammy Allen said the company, whose antibody cocktail’s use was limited in January, is committed to evaluating antibody treatment options as the coronavirus evolves.

“We believe monoclonal antibodies have played an important role in the COVID-19 pandemic to date and may again in the future, particularly among people with immunocompromising conditions,” Allen said.

Vir, which partnered with GSK on sotrovimab, continues to study whether the treatment could work against emerging variants and is also evaluating next-generation antibodies and small-molecule therapies, said spokesperson Carly Scaduto.

Still, pharmaceutical companies may be more inclined — both financially and practically — to pursue developing better antiviral pills that pose fewer drug interactions and are easier to administer, said Jason Gallagher, a clinical pharmacy specialist in infectious diseases at Temple University Hospital. Antivirals also hold up better against an ever-changing virus, he added.

“There’s way more money in Paxlovid than there is in any monoclonal” antibody treatment, Gallagher said, and it may take incentives to drugmakers to encourage their development. “They’re not going to make anyone really rich.”

​ Read More 

Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories 

One of the oldest forms of clean power is ready for a comeback — and it’s not wind or solar.

Geothermal energy — the technology that harnesses the heat beneath the Earth’s crust — is drawing fresh interest after lawmakers boosted funding flows for it in the bipartisan infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act, dovetailing with advances in technology, new state incentives and interest from the oil drilling sector.

While the next generation of geothermal projects are still in the early stages of development, advocates say the underground energy source has the potential to supply more than 60 gigawatts of firm, flexible power by 2050 — a more than 15-fold jump from the 3.7 GW of capacity it now has in the United States.

“Not since, say the 1970s, where there was a huge pivot to the geothermal side of the house, have we seen the type of interest that we’re seeing today,” said Kelly Blake, president of the board of directors at Geothermal Rising, a geothermal-focused trade association.

“It just really seems as though geothermal has an upward trajectory at the moment, in terms of innovation, funding, interest at all levels of business, but also the government,” Blake added.

The Biden administration is pushing oil and gas companies to take a serious look at incorporating geothermal projects into their business plans. At a December meeting of the National Petroleum Council, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm described geothermal as a favorite topic of hers.

“That’s kind of irresistible when you consider the skills set and the know-how that this industry already has in extracting energy from the subsurface,” Granholm told the gathering of oil companies executives, which included Exxon CEO and Chair Darren Woods. “I know you manage [carbon] molecules, but you can manage a lot of things. Think: You drill holes, too. You go beneath the surface, you know where things are. And fracking really opens up a huge opportunity for enhanced geothermal.”

Like its name suggests, geothermal refers to the heat energy from below the Earth’s surface. It relies on tapping into reservoirs of hot water that are brought to the surface to generate electricity and for heating and cooling. Most of the United States’ reservoirs are located in the West, but the emergence of potential new technology could also expand its use.

Companies that invest in geothermal projects and meet prevailing wage requirements would be eligible for a 30 percent tax credit under the Inflation Reduction Act, with an additional 10 percent applied if the project meets domestic content requirements or is located in an energy community, which include areas where a coal mine has closed or that have been economically reliant on fossil fuel extraction and processing.

The bipartisan infrastructure law authorized $84 million for four enhanced geothermal systems demonstration projects — applications for which are expected to open early next year. The Energy Department has also set a target to cut the cost of enhanced geothermal systems — which could enhance existing reservoirs or create new ones — by 90 percent by 2035. And it’s examining the geothermal energy and heat production potential from abandoned oil and gas wells.

“Over the last 15 years, huge numbers of wells have been drilled in the United States because of the shale revolution,” said Sarah Jewett, head of strategy at Fervo Energy, a company that develops next-generation geothermal projects. “All of this technology has evolved and grown and that can be directly applied to geothermal power, but has just never needed to be applied.”

Companies already normally associated with oil and gas drilling in the United States have started delving more deeply into geothermal projects. Baker Hughes, one of the largest drilling companies in the world, is expanding its geothermal business and has formed a partnership with Continental Resources and Chesapeake Energy — two giants in the independent oil and gas sector — to test whether they can profitably turn spent natural gas wells into geothermal facilities.

The increased interest stems from a number of carrots and sticks, said Ajit Menon, Baker Hughes vice president of geothermal. While government subsidies help, there’s also a desire in the private sector to find ways to conform with new reliability regulations in California and elsewhere that are seeking carbon-free, baseload electricity that can be produced around the clock.

“The development today, both from a technology startup perspective and with strong interest and support from or at least potential support from institutions from the government, it’s probably the most exciting time I’ve seen for geothermal in a long time,” Menon said.

Geothermal development may also benefit from the know-how and data that oil and drilling companies have already accumulated over the past decade. The industry already possesses maps of existing geothermal hot spots, and engineering advances hold the potential to make even “dry” geothermal wells — those that have heat but no fluid — profitable in the future.

Oil and gas giant Chevron Corp. signed a partnership in December for its Chevron New Energies business to partner with Sweden’s Baseload Capital to develop a new generation of geothermal development technologies, including a project in Weepah Hills mountains in Nevada.

“If you look at geothermal, we’re leveraging some of Chevron’s core capabilities,” said Barbara Harrison, vice president of offsets and emerging technology at Chevron New Energies. “That’s why we’re looking at geothermal to be able to support our operations versus some other more traditional renewable energy resources.”

Still, the technology faces its own challenges beyond the technical barriers like the need for better exploration technologies. Among them, are permitting obstacles and comparatively higher costs than traditional renewable energy sources, like wind and solar.

Capital costs for the development of conventional geothermal are between $3,000 to $6,000 per kilowatt-electric, whereas land-based wind or utility-scale solar photovoltaic capital costs are between $1,700 to $2,100/kWe, according to a report from the Energy Department based on 2016 data.

Lauren Boyd, acting director of DOE’s Geothermal Technologies Office, said the lengthy processes that developers must go through to get geothermal online isn’t “necessarily aligned” with other other industries that do similar groundwork. And, she said that the oil and gas industry has flagged the long permitting timelines that could slow development and the timeline for profitability.

“If you waste seven years permitting, that’s not attractive, especially to industries like oil and gas that have really large operations [where] things happen pretty quickly,” Boyd said.

Geothermal is the “more expensive black sheep” compared to wind and solar, said Jewett, but she and other advocates warn it’s not a simple “apples-to-apples” comparison. DOE is examining how communities and utilities can better value geothermal, given that it is a baseload power producer that can provide flexible and reliable generation, Boyd said.

Advocates also point to the need for even more funding from lawmakers to help the capital-intensive technology reduce its costs in the future.

“We as an industry are or have been historically happy with however much funding we can get, but when you take a look at the distribution of the funding to different types of energy, geothermal really is a drop in the bucket,” Blake of Geothermal Rising said.

Still, working in the industry’s favor is long-time bipartisan interest, with the technology receiving boosted funding under both Republican and Democratic administrations, making it a potential area of interest as lawmakers head into a divided Congress in January.

“When it comes down to it, the value of this solution, especially when you think of the numerous baseload energy sources that are likely to continue to come offline, this can really fill in the gap and the industry is in a sweet spot bipartisanly,” Blake said.

​ Read More 

Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories 

The race to the moon between the United States and China is getting tighter and the next two years could determine who gains the upper hand.

So says NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, who warns that Beijing could establish a foothold and try to dominate the most resource-rich locations on the lunar surface — or even keep the U.S. out.

“It is a fact: we’re in a space race,” the former Florida senator and astronaut said in an interview. “And it is true that we better watch out that they don’t get to a place on the moon under the guise of scientific research. And it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they say, ‘Keep out, we’re here, this is our territory.’”

He cited an Earthly example in the South China Sea, where the Chinese military has established bases on contested islands. “If you doubt that, look at what they did with the Spratly Islands.”

Nelson’s hawkish comments follow NASA’s 26-day Artemis I mission, in which an uncrewed Orion space capsule flew around the moon. That mission, widely regarded as a success, was the first big step toward NASA’s plan to land astronauts on the lunar surface to begin building a more permanent human presence — which could come as early as 2025.

It also comes on the heels of Congress’ passage of a full-year budget for NASA. The agency did not get all the funding it requested, but Nelson insisted that the “have to haves” were not shortchanged. That includes the key components for the next two moon missions, Artemis II and Artemis III.

But looming ever-larger is China’s aggressive space program, including its recent opening of a new space station. Beijing has announced a goal of landing taikonauts on the moon by the end of this decade. In December, China’s government laid out its vision for more ambitious endeavors such as building infrastructure in space and creating a space governance system.

Any significant delays or mishaps in the U.S. program, which is counting on a series of new systems and equipment that are still under development, could risk falling behind the Chinese. And NASA’s moon-landing timeline has already slipped a year from the Trump administration.

Over the past few years, Beijing has launched a series of robotic landers and rovers to collect lunar samples — including for the first time ever on the far side of the moon — as well as an orbiter, lander and rover that reached Mars.

The U.S. military, which has also expressed growing concerns about Beijing’s development of space systems that could threaten U.S. satellites, has been sounding the alarm about the security implications of Beijing’s forays into deep space.

“It’s entirely possible they could catch up and surpass us, absolutely,” Space Force Lt. Gen. Nina Armagno said last month during a visit to Australia as China was launching its 10th crew to its Shenzhou space station. “The progress they’ve made has been stunning — stunningly fast.”

A recent Pentagon report to Congress highlighted a series of recent leaps for the Chinese space program.

It cited China’s pioneering ability to not just to land on the far side of the moon but to set up a communications relay using a satellite that was launched the year before between the Earth and the moon.

The report also found that China is improving its ability to manufacture space launch systems for human exploration farther into space.

Some NASA veterans are also watching with growing concern.

Terry Virts, a former commander of the International Space Station and Space Shuttle and a retired Air Force colonel, said the competition has political and security components.

“On one level, it is a political competition to show whose system works better,” he said in an interview. “What they really want is respect as the world’s top country. They want to be the dominant power on Earth, so going to the moon is a way to show their system is working. If they beat us back to the moon it shows they are better than us.”

But there are practical threats that a Chinese foothold on the moon could present, he added.

“There is potentially mischief China can do on the moon,” Virts said. “If they set up infrastructure there they could potentially deny communications, for example. Having them there doesn’t make things easier. There is real concern about Chinese meddling.”

The Chinese communist government maintains that such concerns about its motives are unfounded.

“Some U.S. officials have spoken irresponsibly to misrepresent the normal and legitimate space endeavors of China,” Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said in a statement. “China firmly rejects such remarks.”

“Outer space is not a wrestling ground,” he added. “The exploration and peaceful uses of outer space is humanity’s common endeavor and should benefit all. China always advocates the peaceful use of outer space, opposes the weaponization of and arms race in outer space, and works actively toward building a community with a shared future for mankind in the space domain.”

Nelson expressed confidence that the U.S. effort to get back to the moon first is on schedule, noting the congressional funding for the Artemis program. Congress this week approved $24.5 billion for NASA in fiscal 2023, about half a billion dollars less than what President Joe Biden requested.

But it still marks a more than 5 percent increase from this year. And Nelson said the moon effort is getting what NASA has asked for.

“Don’t look at the topline,” he said. “Look at the essentials.” Nelson cited, for example, the Human Landing System in the form of SpaceX’s Starliner and a competition for a second lander that is now underway.

“That was fully funded at the president’s request,” Nelson said.

He expressed confidence that the next moon mission, Artemis II, can take place “within two years” and “hopefully we can speed that up.” That mission plan is to send a crew into the moon’s orbit by 2024.

But he said the space agency is under intense pressure because it has been forced, as a cost-saving measure, to reuse all the avionics inside the Artemis I capsule for Artemis II.

Because it didn’t develop a fully outfitted spacecraft for Artemis II, NASA has to strip the capsule that just returned of all its spaceflight systems and reinstall them in another. “That is costing us time,” Nelson said.

The goal is still to fly Artemis II by the end of 2024, he said, but “they tell me they can’t [speed it up,] that they need that time to redo them and recertify and all that.”

Then follows the signature goal of Artemis III to land astronauts on the moon by the end of 2025, which is already a year later than the Trump administration’s plan.

“All of that is going to depend on two things,” Nelson said. “The space suits, are they ready? And is SpaceX ready? And I ask the question every day: ‘How is SpaceX’s progress? And all of our managers are telling me they are meeting all of their milestones.”

But he is clearly worried about China also gaining ground — and eyeing some of the same locations for its moon landings.

“China within the last decade has had enormous success and advances,” he said. “It is also true that their date for landing on the moon keeps getting closer and closer” based on the country’s announcements.

“And there are only so many places on the south pole of the moon that are adequate for what we think, at this point, for harvesting water and so forth,” he said.

Asked whether American astronauts will get back to the moon before China arrives, Nelson responded, “The good Lord willing.”

Still, not everyone is convinced Washington and Beijing are spiraling toward a moon brawl.

“I’m dubious,” said Victoria Samson, Washington director of the Secure World Foundation, which is dedicated to the peaceful use of outer space.

She noted that China, like the United States, is a party to the Outer Space Treaty, which bars nations from making territorial claims on any celestial body, including the moon.

It also will be difficult for any nation to maintain a long-term human presence in deep space, she said. “That seems unrealistic. It is going to be extremely challenging.”

But she agreed there could be competition between Washington and Beijing for “limited landing sites and resources” on the lunar surface.

“That’s where we have made the argument that there is a need to engage with China,” Samson said, “because of the possibility of landing near each other or having to provide emergency services to astronauts or taikonauts.”

​ Read More 

Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories 

A year makes a difference after all.

President Joe Biden begins 2023 politically stronger than 12 months ago, bolstered by his party’s surprise midterms success, a robust set of legislative accomplishments and the resilience of the alliance he rallied to support Ukraine after Russia’s invasion. Indeed, as he vacations on St. Croix, the biggest decision he faces is whether to seek reelection to the office he holds.

Biden has not yet fully committed to another term, according to three people with knowledge of the deliberations but not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations. On his island vacation, Biden continued his running conversation with family and a select few friends and allies about a reelection bid.

There are challenges still on the horizon, from an economy threatening to slow down, to the war in Europe, to an incoming Republican House majority threatening gridlock and investigations. But those in the president’s circle believe there is a strong and growing likelihood that he will run again and that an announcement could potentially come earlier than had been expected, possibly as soon as mid-February, around the expected date of the State of the Union, according to those people.

That potentially accelerated time is owed, in part, to a sense inside the White House and among Biden allies, that the new year dawns on a note of revival, one marked by an unlikely comeback that has reassured fellow Democrats.

Revamping the primary calendar to put Biden-friendly South Carolina first was another sign of intention to run again. First Lady Jill Biden has signaled that she is onboard with another bid, even as some close Biden worry about the toll of a campaign on the 80-year-old president. Advisors privately acknowledge that Biden benefitted in 2020 by being spared the full rigors of a campaign due to the pandemic and some close to him harbor anxieties as to how he will handle a punishing, full-blown itinerary this time around.

Though some Democrats still express worry about Biden’s age, their public doubts were largely silenced by the party’s strong November showing, in which Democrats grew their Senate lead and prevented a red wave in the House. There are still worries, chief among them, per White House aides, is the economy.

Though inflation has somewhat cooled, it remains high in most sectors and there are fears that gas prices could rise again next year. Moreover, there is a quiet concern in the West Wing that the nation’s economy will slow for at least the first quarter of 2023, according to administration officials, even if the United States manages to technically avoid a recession.

Europe, meanwhile, seems poised for a possibly significant setback, having been battered by inflation and an energy crisis exacerbated by the war in Ukraine. That could cause residual effects in the U.S. as could a lingering Covid crisis in China, which has sparked worries in Washington about supply line challenges as well as the possible birth of a new virus variant that could spread throughout the globe.

China looms as another concern for other reasons. Though Biden’s November summit with Xi Jinping in Bali helped cool some tensions between the two superpowers, Beijing has continued to send menacing signals toward Taiwan and has not fully abandoned its Russian allies. And while Kyiv has shown remarkable resilience in repelling Russia’s forces, Moscow has shown no signs of abandoning its invasion and has resorted to terror strikes against Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure to plunge much of the nation into darkness during a cold winter.

Closer to home, while the Republicans’ majority in the House will be slim and unruly, the newly empowered GOP lawmakers will be able to exact a price on the West Wing. After two years of unified Democratic control, Biden will now see much of his agenda stall. And armed with the power of subpoena, Republicans are vowing to open a slew of investigations into the president’s policies and family. Already, there are frictions between the two sides over document production and records requests.

But the Biden White House points to its success in 2022 as proof that its strategy has been working. Rewarded by voters, the West Wing sees no reason to change course.

The president’s aides believe that the Republican agenda on many issues — from entitlements to abortion — is out of step with a majority of the public. Biden took office promising an alternative to the extremist elements in the Republican Party and pledged to work across the aisle. He managed to achieve some bipartisan victories in 2022, including on a semiconductor chips bill and a modest gun control package.

“The American people were clear in the best midterms for a new President in 60 years that they want leaders to focus on improving their lives — not partisan divisiveness — and President Biden’s hand is outstretched to his Republican colleagues in an offer to make bipartisan progress for the country,” said White House spokesperson Andrew Bates.

While many GOP election deniers were defeated in November, the extreme right will wield power in the new Congress and has all but pledged obstruction. Biden has steadfastly promised to find areas of compromise, and his aides believe that he’ll be cheered by voters for the effort even if the results are scarce. The West Wing also believes the planned congressional investigations could backfire on the new GOP House majority, considering some of the likely areas of inquiry.

Republicans have vowed to look into the administration’s handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal and the migrant crisis at the border. But they’ve also pledged to investigate the business dealings of the president’s son, Hunter Biden. Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), expected to be a loud voice in the new Congress, recently declared “We are going to make it very clear that this is now an investigation of President Biden.”

While a newly empowered GOP majority in the House will block most chances of significant policy action, White House aides believe that some previous legislative wins will more fully take effect next year and prove popular with voters, furthering their momentum. Biden’s inflation reduction act will lock in key priorities on climate funding and prescription drug prices. The transportation law will continue to fund projects across the country. And his final piece of legislation for the year, a $1.7 trillion bipartisan spending package, includes an overhaul of the law his predecessor cited in the lead up to the January 6 riot.

“There were questions about whether or not Biden would run again but not only are those questions muted, there is more energy and enthusiasm to run again,” said Basil Smikle, a Democratic strategist. “He got elected to bring the pendulum back to the middle, to create some sort of normalcy, and he’s done that. He’s also cast a light on Republicans to make their candidates less desirable.”

But 2023 will also be a year of war. Perhaps Biden’s signature accomplishment over the past 12 months was his ability to hold an alliance together to support Ukraine in its rebellion against Russia, framing the fight as one for democracies around the globe. The conflict appears nowhere close to abating: neither side will entertain peace negotiations, and there are worries about how long European solidarity will last in the face of a growing economic crisis.

The war has become a vital test of Biden’s governing principle: that this century would be a battle between democracies and autocracies and the free world would win if it proved it could deliver for its people. So far, Biden believes it has.

“The American people know that if we stand by in the face of such blatant attacks on liberty and democracy and the core principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, the world would surely face worse consequences,” said Biden as he stood alongside Ukraine’s president at the White House. “American people are prepared to have us stand up to bullies, stand up for freedom. That’s who we are as Americans. And that’s exactly what we’ve done.”

​ Read More