"New York City Enveloped in Smoke as Bushfires Rage Amid Drought Conditions"

The little-known federal agency that oversees the country's extensive network of pipelines, power lines, and transfer stations is not well-known to most Americans. However, it has been a major concern for Sen. Joe Manchin III.

By the end of last year, the West Virginia Democrat had grown increasingly dissatisfied with how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) was assisting the Biden administration in advancing its ambitious climate goals. Manchin, a strong supporter of fossil fuel interests, particularly criticized the agency's efforts to develop regulations that take into account the climate impact when reviewing new natural gas infrastructure.

As a result, he obstructed the agency's operations.

As the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Manchin refused to hold a confirmation hearing for the reappointment of Richard Glick, the agency's chair and a key ally of President Biden, after Glick's term expired at the end of the year. This move effectively deprived the board of its Democratic majority, leaving it deadlocked and limiting its ability to promote renewable energy projects.

Manchin is no longer the crucial tie-breaking vote for Democrats in the Senate, but one year after supporting the Inflation Reduction Act, which would not have passed without his backing, he is furious about how Biden is implementing the law. He is fighting back: In addition to pressuring FERC, Manchin has pledged to oppose appointments to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department. He is even publicly considering running for president in 2024, an unlikely scenario but one that could be detrimental to Biden — a situation that senior White House officials are closely monitoring.

"I completely disagree with how they are trying to promote an energy policy... It's not just about being 'all green and clean,'" Manchin said on a West Virginia radio show earlier this month. "I continuously disagree with them."

Now Biden and his aides find themselves in a delicate position of trying to accommodate Manchin's demands where possible to avoid further antagonizing him, while still advancing a climate agenda that the senator strongly opposes — even though his vote last year made it possible in the first place.

Publicly, the White House has refrained from retaliating against Manchin.

"We appreciate the senator's work on this. The president and Senator Manchin have collaborated on developing an approach that led to the passage of the IRA, and we are extremely grateful for that," said John Podesta, a senior advisor to Biden on climate change, during a press briefing on Wednesday. "We are trying to implement it based on what Congress passed... Now, he has disagreed a little bit with some of those interpretations, but I think we are working in good faith to provide guidance as quickly as possible."

It took over a year of arduous negotiations, marked by bitter and personal disagreements, for Manchin and Biden to reach an agreement on the Inflation Reduction Act. However, instead of resolving tensions between the president and his party's most conservative senator, the law has sparked new disagreements.

Manchin has criticized the Biden administration at almost every turn regarding its implementation of the law — from regulations on electric vehicle tax credits, which he believes do not do enough to compel automakers to relocate their supply chains to the United States, to its execution of a methane fee program, which he and other Democratic senators argue unfairly penalizes fossil fuel companies. He has told Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen that her work on the law is "outside her area of expertise," accused the administration of pushing a "radical climate agenda," and even threatened to work with Republicans to repeal his own legislation. On Wednesday, he skipped a ceremony commemorating the first anniversary of the law at the White House.

Biden aides cannot risk completely alienating Manchin, as they rely on his vote to pass legislation and he is seen as the only Democrat who can prevent his Senate seat from going to the GOP. However, White House officials are cautious about giving in to too many of Manchin's demands, which they believe would significantly undermine the climate impact of the legislation that offers the best chance of addressing catastrophic global warming.

Officials in the Biden administration believe that Manchin has at times misunderstood certain provisions of the legislation he wrote, and they see some of his demands as requiring them to violate the law. These concerns are based on the belief that Manchin benefits politically from criticizing Biden in conservative West Virginia, where he is up for reelection next year. As a result, they doubt that making substantive concessions will prevent him from attacking the White House.

"While they may be confused and frustrated and want to push back against him sometimes, they know they still need him," said Jim Manley, a former top aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

The disagreements arise from differing interpretations between Manchin and Biden regarding the purpose of the Inflation Reduction Act. Manchin sees the legislation primarily as a means to stimulate U.S. energy production, regardless of the type of energy and its impact on the planet. On the other hand, many administration officials view the legislation's main objective as combating climate change, which is emphasized by this summer's natural disasters and is a central promise of the president. They also aim to increase overall energy production and bring jobs back to the United States. (Manchin has expressed support for clean energy but is cautious about the scale of the transition advocated by Biden.)

"Manchin sees this as a balanced bill to accelerate energy innovation without driving up energy prices and costs. And the Biden administration wants to interpret IRA in a way that achieves emissions reductions as quickly as possible," said Ted Nordhaus, founder of the Breakthrough Institute. "Manchin, with his leverage, is trying to rein that in. But the White House is making a sustained effort to work around it and still achieve their objectives."

One of the most contentious debates surrounding the legislation involves how to allocate a highly profitable tax credit, worth billions of dollars, to manufacturers of green hydrogen, a new fuel that can power factories, trucks, and planes without emitting carbon. However, producing green hydrogen requires a significant amount of energy. If it is produced using polluting energy sources like natural gas or coal, it could ultimately worsen global warming, according to researchers.

The Treasury is considering new regulations that would require makers of green hydrogen to generate enough zero-emissions electricity for each project. Manchin strongly opposes this idea and has led the pushback against these regulations. His efforts played a role in the administration's decision to delay the release of guidelines for the tax credit, originally scheduled for August 16, until at least late fall.

"It would severely hinder the entire green hydrogen industry," said Andrew Forrest, an Australian mining magnate who has met with Biden and Manchin regarding his plans to establish clean hydrogen plants in the United States with support from the Inflation Reduction Act.

Manchin added language to a major budget bill expressing concern that the Senate Appropriations Committee does not authorize additional limitations or restrictions imposed by the Department of the Treasury in order to qualify for the clean hydrogen production tax credit. However, this provision is not binding, and senior officials

The provision was not binding, but senior White House officials have assured outside advocates that they understand the importance of preventing clean hydrogen subsidies from increasing emissions, according to three anonymous sources familiar with the matter.

Rachel Fakhry, who leads hydrogen work at the Natural Resources Defense Council, emphasized the need for clean energy to power assets in order to avoid a substantial increase in emissions.

The Treasury Department's implementation of a new tax credit for electric vehicles has also caused disagreements between the two sides.

Manchin has expressed anger over the fact that new requirements for domestic production do not apply to commercial electric vehicles. Administration officials and independent legal experts have stated that this requirement is outside the scope of the law. Manchin has also objected strongly to Treasury's guidelines for determining which batteries qualify for the credit, although the administration used the definition established under the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law, which Manchin voted for. (Manchin's team argues that the Inflation Reduction Act included a stricter definition that the administration should have followed.)

These disagreements also reflect a deeper philosophical dispute, with Manchin prioritizing moving supply chains back to the United States over the rapid deployment of electric vehicles. At the same time, the administration has faced criticism from automakers for enacting laws that are too stringent, which environmental groups fear could slow down the deployment of EVs. Manchin has been furious with Treasury's initial interpretation of the law, and he may become even more inflamed by upcoming regulations that will determine to what extent EVs built with batteries using Chinese materials qualify for the credit.

White House spokesman Michael Kikukawa stated, "We are implementing the Inflation Reduction Act as written, which is achieving many goals we share with Senator Manchin," such as improving U.S. energy security and creating more union jobs.

Manchin has also expressed frustration that the administration is not sufficiently focused on reducing the deficit. However, he has pushed for larger subsidies for large companies on other issues.

For example, pressure from Manchin led the Biden administration to reverse the initial rules of a $3.5 billion program aimed at funding projects that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Initially, the rules prohibited a controversial process in which oil companies compress removed carbon dioxide and pump it into oil wells, which increases crude production in the name of reducing greenhouse gases. Manchin and several other Democratic senators signed a letter to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm in July, which influenced the administration's decision to allow this pumping method.

According to John Fleming, a senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, this technology allows for the production of more fossil fuels using carbon dioxide removed from the air, essentially prolonging the life of the fossil fuel industry and not solving the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.

Now that the Inflation Reduction Act is law, many climate advocates believe that it is time for the White House to stop making concessions to Manchin.

Melinda Pierce, legislative director for the Sierra Club, stated, "The administration has yet to really walk away from a partner that has not upheld his part of the bargain and continues to ask for additional concessions, acting as an obstacle to the implementation of this climate law." She believes that the administration does not need to continue accommodating Manchin's obstruction.

Since voting for the Inflation Reduction Act, Manchin has experienced a significant decline in his poll numbers.

Edit This Article