The Transformation of Activism

Here’s What You Need To Know

Coronavirus has changed a lot about the way we live our lives. What hasn’t changed is the desire to organize ourselves to advocate for the things that matter to us.

While you may think coronavirus has quashed traditional in-person protests and picket lines, activists are still making their cases for their causes online or in person with creative social distancing. Their campaigns, whether six feet apart or virtual, are as vociferous as ever, rallying their troops, many of whom, thanks to widespread lockdowns, have found themselves with more time on their hands than ever. Unfortunately, some are spending that bountiful time disseminating message-tested tropes and unfounded conspiracy theories, often aimed at destroying their targets at a time when organizations and industries feel most vulnerable due to the global pandemic and the economic destruction it has wrought.

The team of analysts here at Delve are monitoring many of these efforts every day, and we are seeing key strategies, themes, and messages emerge as activism in the new normal takes shape – all of which will have consequences for companies and industries navigating toward recovery. Here are some ways that activists have exploited the coronavirus, adapted their tactics in pursuit of their agenda, and recalibrated for the fights that lie ahead.

Activists Haven’t Stopped Advocating, They’ve Just Gotten Creative

  • Earth Day Goes Online: Environmental activists had long relied upon large-scale demonstrations boosted by star power and grants from big foundation to draw attention to their cause. With Earth Day gatherings canceled due to coronavirus lockdowns, activists were forced to turn to online alternatives like digital presentations, film screenings, and “teach-ins.” They coordinated social media messaging, urging fans to share digital posters and collaborate virtually to “demand #climateaction,” while celebrities like Joaquim Phoenix and Mark Ruffalo lectured the world on video chat panels. Predictably, the media fawned over their campaign and its ability to adapt to coronavirus lockdowns. However, supporters lamented that 2020 Earth Day celebrations, which were meant to organize hundreds of thousands of protesters in honor of the movement’s 50th anniversary, attracted less interest in the midst of the pandemic.
     
  • Virtual Campaigning and Campaign Schools: While many of us are on lockdown, campaigning continues from inside the house. The Verge reports that activists are once again embracing the long-dreaded phone banking system of outreach to complement their online efforts to elect their preferred candidates and promote their favorite causes. Meanwhile, virtual rallies are being held to “fix our health system,” targeting Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar to “demand tests and immediate production of ventilators and universal access to healthcare” through “Twitter live protesting” and speeches from activists. Over at the Sunrise School, the online activity academy of the environmentalist organization Sunrise Movement, activists are “seizing this moment to become the leaders [the green energy movement] needs,” hosting online courses to “build connections with other young people who are freaked out about climate change, the coronavirus, and the state of our world” and teaching activists how to confront “crises gripping our society.”
     
  • Social Distancing for a Cause: Even as most activism has moved online, Americans have gotten creative about how they can express themselves without breaking social distancing regulations. In Pennsylvania, criminal justice advocates held a “drive-by-protest” to demand a mass release of inmates, while their Mississippi counterparts held a “Care-a-Van” in Jackson.  Angry Michiganders attracted international media attention when they descended upon Lansing to plea with the Democratic governor to ease what they felt was a draconian stay-at-home order. The Louisiana Bucket Brigade, which opposes the state’s petrochemical industry, hosted a socially distant protest in front of a Denka/DuPont facility they livestreamed on Facebook and held its “Stop the Money Pipeline” demonstration standing six feet apart in COVID-19 hotspot of New Orleans.
     
  • The New Advocacy Frontier: Video Games There is already evidence that these changes are not just temporary solutions for this unusual period of time. Newsweek reports that beyond social media, activists are now looking at less traditional platforms, like gaming, as sustainable, permanent organizing tools. They point out that Hong Kong’s freedom-fighting efforts, which had been all-but-eliminated due to China’s public health catastrophe, had moved to Nintendo, where advocates used the game “Animal Crossing: New Horizons” to speak freely without the communist party’s censorship.

And They Are Using COVID-19 as an Opportunity To Promote Their Long-term Policy Goals

  • Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste: Progressive activists have apparently learned from Rahm Emanuel’s famous quote and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn’s (D-SC) call to revive it: now is the time for big change. In POLITICO Magazine, senior writer Michael Grunwald argues that while it is “horrible” the economy has collapsed due to the coronavirus, there is value in how it has shown that human beings’ day-to-day living – eating beef, flying in airplanes, driving to work – can harm the Earth. Greta Thunberg, who commands an army of young activists and who enjoys legitimacy from admiring world leaders and celebrities, says the shutdowns prove that when science calls for it, we can make major lifestyle changes – like those required for her green agenda. Meanwhile, social justice activists claims the virus proves the dangers of income inequality and racial disparities. UNAIDS, meant to eliminate “AIDS as a public health threat by 2030” as a part of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, is demanding an “increase in health spending and social protection” become an “essential part of the economic response to COVID-19,” claiming the pandemic’s consequences are the “man-made” impacts of “extreme inequality that is hardwired into our global economy.”
     
  • ‘Keep It In The Ground’ Becomes ‘Put Them In The Ground’: Green activists are pushing for stimulus bills to provide financial backing for their preferred products while pressuring policymakers to divest from fossil fuels. 350.org founder Bill McKibben writes in The New Yorker that lawmakers should use coronavirus as an excuse to “distance ourselves” from fossil fuels all together, arguing they must do so immediately to take advantage of the crisis to achieve lasting policy changes. He points to Congress passing financial relief bills as the perfect opportunity to use “corporate bailouts to advance green energy.” Activists in academia agree, with Ivy League students and boards of trustees candidates demanding divestment from fossil fuels, as others muse about a potential government takeover of the oil industry and “wind down their operations.”
     
  • Criminal Justice Reform as Public Health Concern: Bipartisan criminal justice reform proponents claim the highly virulent COVID-19 shows just how dangerous overcrowding in prisons can be. Josh Spickler of Right on Crime, a national initiative affiliated with the free market-oriented Texas Public Policy Foundation, told The Tennessean that coronavirus brought about the “hyper-acceleration” of long-term policy goals, as lawmakers across the country released inmates due to fears of infection spread. If they can demonstrate that released inmates posed few or no problems to society, they may be able to bolster their case for future systemic reforms. Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union has demanded prisoner releases from prisons in several jurisdictions the group has long fought against to protect inmates from the disease.
     
  • Punishing or Rewarding Corporate Behavior: As Morgan Stanley’s Head of Sustainability Research warns, “Corporate behavior in a time of crisis … can have lasting implications, both positive and negative … These factors can be linked to long-term performance and returns.” Activists are building on their success connecting such environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors with market expectations and ramping up efforts to hold corporations responsible for the way they (are perceived to) conduct business in the current crisis. A new study by Nuveen anticipates an uptick in ESG scrutiny by protestors, the media, and investors, and we are already seeing evidence of such pressures. In the health care sector, for example, British activists want the government to guarantee that “any COVID-19 medicines or technologies created with public funds are available to all, patent-free,” while in America, activists are tracking which utility companies suspend customers’ service over unpaid bills. Companies need to consider their risks from this scrutiny, but also the opportunities. A recent Harvard Business Review article details ways they can turn their talk of “social purpose and … values” into action during the COVID-19 crisis, noting the effects of how well they do so will be felt long after the pandemic concludes.

So Be Prepared To Defend Your Brand and Reputation

Coronavirus might have caused activism to change, but it certainly hasn’t stopped it. In spite of the realignments necessary to successfully employ new tactics, activism has in some ways intensified, in large part due to an abundance of time and energy on the part of those who might otherwise by occupied by work or social engagements.

Corporations and industries must not mistake social distancing as a lack of disturbance for their industries. Instead, they must be prepared to confront new forms of activism that brings consequences with staying power. If you need help understanding the challenges, we are happy to chat.

Delving in Together: Government Keeps Governing, Even in a Crisis

In public affairs, what you don’t know can hurt you. As we are bombarded with so much information during the coronavirus pandemic, it can be hard to keep track of it all. That is why, now more than ever, Delve is committed to helping government relations professionals maintain an information advantage, even as COVID-19 overshadows other developments that would typically be front page news.

Because the analysts here at Delve are dedicated to ensuring you don’t miss anything that matters to your interests, we wanted to fill you in on what is been happening inside governments – outside of their COVID-19 response. While we might all be stuck inside for a few weeks more, at every level and in every jurisdiction, governments are still governing, courts are still ruling, and advocates are still making their cases. One need look no further than the energy and environmental policy arena to see just how much governments have continued to do even in the midst of a global pandemic.

We have been tracking these under the radar issues to understand the changes governments have made that affect energy and other companies so that you, too, may anticipate what could lay ahead for your industry.

  • Keystone XL Pipeline Court Drama Continues: Last week, a federal judge invalidated a critical permit for construction of the long-awaited Keystone XL Pipeline. Chief Judge Brian Morris of U.S. District Court for Montana ruled that the Army Corps of Engineers “failed to consult the Fish and Wildlife Service to see if the updated nationwide permit would endanger animals and plants protected by the Endangered Species Act,” Politico reports. The permit, which the Corps had renewed in 2017, would have allowed pipelines, cables, and other utility lines to make multiple crossings of federally protected waters without a lengthy individual review of each maneuver. Environmental activists are celebrating this ruling as yet another obstacle they’ve successfully imposed on TransCanada in its 15-year battle to construct an oil pipeline from Alberta, Canada to southeast Texas. Jared Margolis, a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the ruling “makes it clear that the Trump administration can’t continue to push dirty fossil fuel pipelines while ignoring the devastating impacts they have on the environment,” but project backers say they’re as determined as ever to take it across the finish line.
  • Energy & Utility Regulatory Changes on the Horizon: Federal regulators at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced last week that they plan to scale back some inspection and reporting rules for oil pipelines in efforts to alleviate the regulatory burden on oil companies. PHMSA says their rule changes would “clarify reporting requirements for pipeline inspections, streamline rules for oil spill response plans, and relieve some accident reporting requirements,” Morning Energy reports. Environmental activists aren’t happy with PHMSA’s plan, and they have until the public commenting period closes on June 15th to rally their forces in opposition to the proposed regulatory reform. Meanwhile, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) announced in mid-March that it has opened a new rulemaking docket to improve how it sets incentives for building transmission lines. In its announcement, FERC explained it wants to establish a new cost-benefit analysis that would help the commission quantify the return on equity (ROE) given to transmission builders. FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee says this new system will transition the commission from its “risks and challenges” approach to one “based upon benefits to consumers: ensuring reliability and reducing the cost of delivered power by reducing the cost of congestion.” Comments are due 90 days after the proposal was published in the Federal Register.
  • Back to Frack … Or Not? In March, a federal judge upheld the Trump Administration’s repeal of an Obama Administration rule that regulated hydraulic fracturing on public lands. According to Politico, Judge Haywood Gilliam of the U.S. District for Northern California accepted the argument from the Trump Administration, which “argued that the fracking rule unnecessarily duplicated state regulations and burdened the oil and gas industry with ‘unjustified’ costs.” This ruling is a major blow to environmental activists who had received support from California and other states in their never-ending quest to stop hydraulic fracturing. However, activists saw a win in Michigan, where their nearly two-year-long fight to put a fracking ban on the November 2020 ballot won the latest round in an ongoing court battle.
  • More than Hot Air On April 1, 2020, the EPA confirmed it plans to allocate $22 million in funding to the study of “carbon capture.” The agency endeavors to discover a way to remove carbon dioxide directly from ambient air. The project is a collaboration between the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science and DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy, and it will “span the spectrum from fundamental research in materials and chemical sciences to field testing of prototypes,” according to Daily Energy Insider.
  • EPA Advances Changes to Air and Water Rules: The EPA announced last week that it has changed its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule to provide relief for four struggling Rust Belt coal plants. The modification will help coal production facilities in Pennsylvania and West Virginia by allowing them to burn low-quality coal refuse, “waste abandoned from years of mining and burning coal in their states.” According to Utility Dive, “these plants did not meet acid gas and hazardous air pollutant emissions standards” set by the Obama Administration, “but on April 9, the [Trump Administration] EPA issued a final rule creating a subcategory for those plants.” Meanwhile, the Trump Administration published its Navigable Waters Protection rule to the Federal Register, so the 60-day clock is well underway for public commenting on the proposed measure. The proposed changes, which narrow the number of streams and wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act, is expected to draw widespread criticism and even lawsuits from blue state governors and environmental activists.
  • States Advance Climate Goals: Oregon Gov. Kate Brown issued a “cap and reduce” executive order to fight climate change after Republicans in the legislature successfully prevented passage of a “cap and trade program.” Oregon Public Broadcasting noted the order “contains ambitions that are at once equal to and much broader than that bill.” On the solar front, Massachusetts enacted new rules to help the state “meet its climate goals and help the solar industry as it deals with the fallout from the coronavirus pandemic.” The new regulations for the Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target (SMART) program will “double its capacity, expand eligibility criteria for low-income solar projects, and encourage the adoption of energy storage technology,” WBUR reports.  And in Virginia, the new Democratic majority in the legislature “narrowly passed sweeping legislation designed to overhaul how the state’s utilities generate electricity.” The Clean Economy Act codified the “100 percent carbon-dioxide-free energy goals outlined in an executive order from Gov. Ralph Northam in September 2019” and effectively eliminates the oversight authority of the state’s corporate commission over the regulation and approval of electric utilities and directs the state to rely exclusively upon renewable energy by 2050.

This small sampling demonstrates how government’s constant stream of activity never stops affecting industries. Leaders in the energy and utilities fields, especially those dedicated to public affairs and government relations, must remain vigilant as the ever-changing landscape morphs even in the midst of lockdowns during a global health crisis — and so, too, must professionals representing all industries, as no sector is immune to the kinds of judicial, legislative, and regulatory actions detailed above.

Need help navigating these uncertain times? We’re here for you. Simply reply to this email, and we’ll be happy to help you think through how best to tackle current challenges while preparing for future ones, too.

Top Six 2020 Trends to Watch in Energy Infrastructure

In 2019, Delve’s energy team tracked nearly 10,300 instances of activism against more than 100 energy infrastructure projects, companies, and financiers – a 54% increase in observed instances from 2018. Below is our analysis on the key trends from that data to help energy professionals protect their projects and interests in 2020. If you have questions about this analysis, or would like to discuss other public affairs challenges facing your organization, feel free to contact our analyst team.

1. 2019 Saw A Rise In Nationally-Backed But Locally-Coordinated Activism In Traditionally Fossil Fuel-Friendly Texas And Louisiana Against Both Midstream and Downstream Infrastructure Projects, And The Rise Is Likely To Continue In 2020.

As we wrote at this time last year, the strategic and professionalized nature of 21st century activism means “regions critical to America’s shale boom are now a target of opportunity for anti-fossil fuel activism,” including “places not traditionally considered ripe for” such efforts, “including fossil fuel-friendly Texas.” Over the course of 2020, that prediction proved correct.

In Texas, opposition to pipeline projects has risen as local activist groups, backed by national environmentalists, have forged alliances with landowners and “delayed or impeded” major projects. This activism has expanded beyond midstream to include liquified natural gas (LNG) export terminals, such as the proposed projects at the Port of Brownsville for which the Sierra Club and other activists have recently asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to reconsider permitting approvals.

In neighboring Louisiana, activists are targeting petrochemical companies with increasing intensity and new backing from national and global voices as Hollywood actors draw renewed attention to the industry and local activists testify before Congress against “Cancer Alley,” a name that caught on in the 1980s to describe the area between Baton Rouge and New Orleans that contains numerous industrial plants. The term is making a comeback as evidenced by ProPublica’s investigative reporting initiative (in partnership with two local publications) called “Polluter’s Paradise” and two high profile marches through that area of Louisiana organized by the local grassroots Coalition Against Death Alley (CADA), which has attracted attention and support from national environmental groups and was covered in Rolling Stone. The failure of activists to stop the Bayou Bridge Pipeline has also contributed to this effort, as the anti-pipeline activists shifted their attention to the approval process for a new Formosa Plastics plant in St. James parish, as well as other complexes already in operation.

We expect momentum to continue to build in 2020 as grassroots activists further build relationships and increase coordination with prominent national environmental groups. Such developments could impact the interests of companies beyond just petrochemicals that are operating in the Gulf Coast region, as the activist infrastructure is in place to oppose relicensing and permitting renewals, expansion permits, as well as ongoing social permission, including local and state support for the Industrial Tax Exemption and similar measures.

2. In 2019, Energy Activists’ Efforts Shifted In Earnest To Target The Last Mile For Natural Gas.

When Berkeley, California last summer became the first city to ban natural gas in the United States, the decision could have been excused as an outlier rather than the start of a key trend. However, it spurred a number of other cities to explore and implement bans, incentives, and other methods to discourage natural gas use in homes and buildings, with Brookline, Massachusetts becoming the first city in that state to ban new gas hookups last November. Dozens of cities in California, Massachusetts, and Washington are watching legal reviews and challenges of these two bans, with plans to follow suit in 2020.

However, it is not just in traditionally liberal states where these policies are gaining traction. Municipalities in about half of the states in the U.S., including energy-friendly red states such as Colorado and Texas, have indicated a significant level of interest in such bans or in favoring building electrification. In part driven to reduce carbon emissions in the wake of the Paris Climate Agreement, like-minded city and state policymakers are also capitalizing on the groundwork laid by large environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, 350.org, Natural Resources Defense Council, and others providing message amplification, organizing support, tactical expertise, and particularly in the case of Michael Bloomberg’s Beyond Carbon initiative – as we warned last spring – lots of financial resources to promote anti-gas and building electrification policies across the country.

In 2020 and beyond, we expect anti-gas and building electrification policies at the local levels, spurred on by national activist groups and allied local politicians, to become a key forefront in efforts to eradicate fossil fuels usage – even though there are no suitable alternatives for communities. Activists have succeeded in delaying some energy infrastructure projects, but they have realized they cannot always stop them in the Trump era, which has led to a new focus on restricting consumer demand for natural gas.

As these developments continue to unfold, building electrification and natural gas bans will move toward being front and center in the public debate, particularly because most 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have incorporated such policies into their climate proposals.

3. The 2020 Presidential Campaign Is Putting Fossil Fuels On The Ballot Like Never Before And It Could Lead To An Existential Crisis For The Industry’s Survival.

Elizabeth Warren has called for a ban on fracking and has joined others in excluding natural gas from her clean energy plan (despite its significant contribution toward reducing carbon emissions), building electrification has become a policy foundation for ambitious (if unrealistic) climate action, and all aspects of the development, production, transportation, financing, and distribution of America’s oil and gas resources have come under attack.

Candidates have even targeted FERC’s regulatory power by proposing to overhaul it in order to “orient its mission to fighting climate change,” rather than remain focused on ensuring “economically efficient, safe, reliable, and secure energy for [American] consumers.” This shift would transform the industry from the inside out and cause untold damage to the economy, national security, and Americans’ quality-of-life. Perhaps most disconcerting are the calls to jail oil and gas executives from the likes of both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.

However, even if a Democrat does not win The White House, the ideas stated on the campaign trail can still influence policy outcomes in the near and long term and amplify anti-industry messaging, which can foster an increasingly hostile environment at the state and local levels and among dedicated energy activists, as well as shape broader public perceptions about the industry and its contributions to U.S. prosperity and security.

4. Whether Democrats Take The White House Back Or Not, Policy And Regulatory Pressures Have Shifted To The State And Local Levels – And The Courts.

As The White House continues to roll back regulations, state and local leaders in increasing numbers are stepping up to further activist agendas. Thirteen states and three U.S. territories have pledged to target renewable portfolio standards of 50% or greater (at least some of which exclude key renewables like nuclear, hydro, and biogas); more than 40 major U.S. cities are part of nongovernmental coalitions committed to addressing climate change as part of the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, C40, and the American Cities Climate Challenge; twenty-four governors are “leading the country in combatting climate change” as part of the U.S. Climate Alliance; more than 400 U.S. “Climate Mayors” have committed to climate action, and 221 mayors are part of the Sierra Club’s pledge for a community-wide transition to 100% renewable energy.

All of this state and local organizing means the risk landscape has fundamentally changed for companies producing, transporting, and providing energy to Americans and the world. Meanwhile, state attorneys general continue to utilize their power to combat climate change by taking to court corporate interests they deem responsible for enabling it (despite a setback in New York last year). Large environmentalist funders such as Bloomberg Philanthropies have capitalized on this trend by providing financial support to third-party programs and positions within state attorney general offices to further their agendas, and programs such as the NYU Law School State Energy and Environmental Impact Center’s fellows program has funded similar positions in nine states and the District of Columbia.

Additionally, state and local policymakers – enabled by emboldened activism and social pressures – are taking steps across the country that make the policy and regulatory environments in their jurisdictions less energy friendly, such as the decision by Colorado’s commission regulating oil and gas drilling to bring increased scrutiny on well setbacks despite voters rejecting a similar proposal at the ballot box less than one year earlier.

Ensuring positive outcomes and good relationships with federal regulators is no longer enough in 2020, as pro-energy federal leadership is spurring greater fights at the state and local levels. Whether or not Democrats’ influence in Washington remains contained to the House, this trend will only continue well into the future.

5. These Local And State Fights Are Being Driven By A Surge Of Next Generation, Disruptive Energy Activists That Heighten The Political And Reputational Risks Facing The Energy Industry This Year And Beyond.

In mid-2018, Extinction Rebellion did not exist. Now, it has nearly 500 affiliates across more than 70 countries and is shutting down traffic and causing other disruptions in major cities in Europe and the U.S. Domestically, the youth-led Sunrise Movement’s organic and viral climate campaign has engaged and mobilized students, ultimately being instrumental in promoting the Green New Deal and climate change as a critical issue for policymakers – going so far as to stage sit-ins at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office and elsewhere to push sympathetic politicians to take more strident action.

The vast mobilization of students defined the climate protests of 2019, culminating in the Global Climate Strike that was the largest protest in history. Led by Greta Thunberg, her recognition as TIME’s person of the year proves the impact this new generation is having on energy activism. This past year has showcased organic and energized activism and this new generation of voices are reshaping the environmental movement to be more extreme and confrontational.

These efforts have put the energy industry’s issues front and center in the public arena and shifted socially acceptable viewpoints in some communities. The past year was only a preview of what is to come, however, as well-established environmental groups leverage this energy and significant new funding sources, in particular Michael Bloomberg’s commitment to provide significant funding to the Sierra Club and other groups as part of the Beyond Carbon initiative he announced last spring.

With stronger capabilities and rapidly growing local grassroots movements commanding more attention on energy issues in the public arena, energy activism is more sophisticated and disruptive than ever before – and with new groups, and a new generation, gaining influence, new methods of opposing the industry will follow.

6. As The Next Generation Energy Activism Has Shifted Social Attitudes, A Wide Range Of Financial Institutions Have Followed Suit, Bringing New Scrutiny And Restrictions To Fossil Fuel Investments.

The broader political environment, one where activist-enabled divestment campaigns pressured financial institutions and university endowments and pension plans, has changed the way financial institutions do business with the industry and is having ripple effects across sectors. A sign of this impact is demonstrated by the launch this month of “Stop the Money Pipeline,” a new campaign targeting specific banks, insurance companies, and asset managers that fund fossil fuel projects. Beyond the decisions by several insurance companies serving the fossil fuels industry to limit or stop offering coverage, there are new pressures from employees seeking to change their companies’ business decisions, such as workers in Big Tech who are advocating for their employers to take more aggressive steps to combat climate change.

Whether directly pressured by activists or not, financial institutions have given into these growing social pressures and have adapted to avoid this risk, mainly by proactively implementing more scrutiny of climate impacts in their operations and by planning to reduce the amount of capital available for private equity investments in fossil fuels. For example, the world’s largest multilateral lender, the European Investment Bank (EIB), announced a new energy lending policy that will bar investments in most fossil fuel projects, including those that use natural gas, by 2021. The landmark decision may have global implications, with other institutions following suit.

Mark Carney, who warned major corporations of the need to document their climate change-related impacts as Bank of England governor, has since been appointed to become United Nations climate finance envoy. Meanwhile, in the U.S., Federal Reserve policymakers are considering a “green interest rate” that would be imposed to counter the effect climate change has on U.S. GDP.

While these ideas are still in the planning stages, they represent a key trend that highlights how emboldened activism – and particularly the simple threat of it – has impacted more than just the financial sector and energy industry, and has fundamentally altered the broader operating environment.


Need help navigating these and other political and reputational challenges in the energy industry and beyond? The team at Delve can help you by providing deep dive foundational research to understand the stakeholders, risks, and challenges you face, as well as monitoring programs that help you anticipate and prevent such risks from impacting your interests.

Understanding the Networks of Influence Fuels Renewable Energy Project Success

Understanding the Networks of Influence Fuels Renewable Energy Project Success

Challenge: Getting infrastructure projects built is harder than ever – even when those projects advance clean energy goals. Without the community’s trust and support, projects can experience costly delays and disruptions. That’s why an energy developer turned to Delve to help them understand the range of stakeholders engaging in the permitting and approval processes for their project.

Solution: We identified the key elected and appointed officials in the communities where permitting was needed, as well as the stakeholders who could influence them. We then researched these officials’ background and record, including past votes and comments on energy issues and infrastructure projects, community involvement, and centers of influence around them, to understand who would be an ally and who would need more persuasion on the value of the project.

Results: Our analysis helped the company secure allies and anticipate opposition by informing the company’s messaging campaign and engagement plan. When executed, this strategic plan enabled the company’s public affairs team to build trust with the local communities and win support for their project plans.

 

 

 

 

 

Regional Industry Coalition Discovers It Is Funding Its Own Opposition

Challenge

Several foundations were presenting themselves to a regional industry coalition’s corporate members as friendly partners on corporate sustainability initiatives. The coalition leadership suspected there was more to the foundations than met the eye. We were commissioned to investigate the activities of these foundations, which groups they were funding, and how the various foundations and other groups were connected and related.

Solution

We dug in deep to discover which groups were getting funded by the foundations and what initiatives were their true focus. We then mapped the network of activist groups connected to these foundations and presented a comprehensive report of these relationships and groups to the coalition leadership.

Although these foundations claimed to be working in good faith with coalition member companies, they were in fact funding much of the opposition to the industry group’s business goals with regulatory and legislative agencies. Our network map clearly showed how their member corporations were unknowingly funding their own opposition.

Results

With a full picture of the network of partnership and funding taking place, we provided the information needed for industry coalition’s leadership to shift their member’s funding efforts to foundations and causes that supported their interests.

 

The Changing Nature of Energy Activism Means Pipelines Can’t Wait for Crisis To Hit

The Changing Nature of Energy Activism Means Pipelines Can’t Wait for Crisis To Hit

The Overview: Newsbase’s North American Oil & Gas reports, “Last week marked the first anniversary of the closure of the camps in North Dakota that at one point had held thousands of protesters against the Dakota Access pipeline project. Still, the influence of that event looms large, and stands to shape how future demonstrations against energy projects might be carried out.”

Why It Matters: In speaking with Newsbase for the article, Delve Founder & CEO Jeff Berkowitz discussed the changing nature of opposition to energy infrastructure projects, viewing the Dakota Access pipeline protests beginning in Fall 2016 “as a demarcation into a new age of activism.” Indeed, this new age was a prominent feature at this year’s CERAWeek conference, where pipeline CEOs vowed to fight back against today’s more intense, coordinated, and sophisticated environmental activism.

As Newsbase’s Sam Wright warned, “[P]revention is certainly easier than finding a cure. But for those oper­ators that are further down the line, along with their backers, highly visible demonstra­tions are here to stay, especially in the current political climate.”

How We Got Here:

  • “Prior to [DAPL], protests against infrastructure and drilling activity had largely involved com­munities raising concerns over issues such as land value and local environmental impact … This changed with the Keystone XL project” when activist pressure “entered the political sphere, and the project was rejected by former US President Barack Obama in 2015.”
  • “Buoyed by this success and seeking new causes, the movement shifted its focus to the US$3.78 billion Dakota Access project … ‘All of a sudden, you had 10,000 activists, in camps, 90% of which weren’t from North Dakota, and didn’t have a stake in the local issues but were using it to make a broader point,’ Delve’s founder and CEO, Jeff Berkowitz.”

What Comes Next:

  • “[E]ven though protesters failed to stop Dakota Access from being completed, the momentum behind opposition to new projects remains strong. A “Week of Action” is currently under way at the site of Energy Transfer’s Bayou Bridge pipeline in Louisiana. … Meanwhile, Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline replacement project in northern Minnesota … has already seen several arrests” of “protesters that oppose the project chaining themselves to equip­ment and blocking streets. Similar tactics have also been used at the Atlantic Sunrise gas pipeline in Pennsylvania … And the Trans Mountain expan­sion project in Canada has seen numerous demonstrations …”

Was DAPL An Exception? Maybe Not:

  • “In the US, the ongoing wave of protests is per­haps also being spurred by the change in gov­ernment. Under Obama, the federal government was relatively sympathetic to environmental issues and activists … With Trump’s ambitions to build infrastruc­ture and promote ‘energy dominance’ – as well as his more combative nature – some of the tradi­tional avenues for opponents to have their voices heard on energy projects have been shut down.”
  • “Unsurprisingly, many protesters think that this gives them little option other than to take to the streets. This was acknowledged recently by Lancas­ter Against Pipelines’ co-founder, Mark Clatter­buck, whose group opposes the Atlantic Sunrise development,” who claimed they “had ‘tried every means available to us, and what we’ve come to realise is that the local communities actually don’t have the ability to legally stop a project like this’.”
  • “[T]his has prompted a willingness to try new methods. Many groups now routinely publish lists of financial institutions that back the energy projects they oppose. For example, the website of the No Bayou Bridge Solidarity Campaign has listed Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Citibank and Wells Fargo offices on its ‘targets map’ …”

What Can Firms Do To Protect Themselves?

  • “In turn, said Berkowitz, this means that operators are coming under greater pressure to have firm plans in place to deal with activism from the very beginning. ‘Firms are going to have to add this element of due diligence, and if they don’t want to, the banks and the project financiers are going to force them to … We are hearing this a lot from the project finance side, where people are saying that political and reputational risk has to be a key part of the due diligence process.’”
  • This due diligence process, Berkowitz explained, “means understanding who is likely to get engaged, who are the local officials, the landowners and so on … If you do your community outreach … the less sympathetic these stakeholders are to activists because they already know you… You have to do it right, though. It can’t just be a town hall meeting where you show up and answer some questions. It has to be real and meaningful engagement with the community.”

Enviro’s New Playbook, No Show Boat, and #Lobbyists #Resist

Here’s What You Need To Know

As we wrap up 2017, it is time to reflect on the year that was. Over the past year, it has become clear that 2017 became the year of #Resistance as we enter a new Age of Activism that is rocking not just Washington, but many industries, including the energy industry.

As Delve CEO Jeff Berkowitz noted in a Morning Consult column earlier this week, environmental groups are no longer letting the staid bureaucratic process of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) play out slowly. The Sierra Club’s efforts last month to halt construction of the Nexus pipeline by suing FERC before it completed its normal approval process presents a major shift in the way environmental groups engage in the energy infrastructure space. This is just one example of the new, more aggressive playbook being used by energy activists in the Trump era:

  • Turning Up The Heat On FERC: Lacking an administration sympathetic to their cause like the previous one, environmental groups have chosen to do an end-run around the agency that regulates pipeline and other energy infrastructure projects. In filing the lawsuit to stop the project before the Commission’s rehearing process is completed, Sierra Club is showing that no regulatory process that has been an accepted sequence for years is safe from activists. The result is a government oversight process that becomes even more politicized as both sides become increasingly confrontational.
  • Increasing The Risk Of Confrontation: Environmental groups and their supporters are more impatient for victories and more aggressive in their tactics, posing political, financial, and reputational risks for energy companies and project financiers. The push for quicker legal action or street protests also pressures pipeline companies to get shovels in the ground on their projects sooner, increasing the likelihood for real confrontations like those witnessed during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. There is a reason why PBS NewsHour named the anti-DAPL protests the biggest story of 2016 after the presidential election: What we saw at Dakota Access is a harbinger of what is to come.
  • Welcome To The Age Of Activism: This is part of the broader trend highlighted in Delve’s white paper on the new Age of Activism. The speed, scale, and professionalization of today’s activist movements present challenges for unsuspecting and unprepared companies – meaning it is more important than ever to have a competitive information advantage to anticipate and protect against these risks.

Read the entire op-ed here.

News You Can Use

NO SHOW BOAT

Why did Viking River Cruises terminate its plan to offer vacations along the Mississippi River? The European-based company decided that the economics of operating in the U.S. no longer made sense due to an obscure federal law signed by then-President Grover Cleveland in 1886, the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA). This law, which requires that ships carrying passengers between U.S. ports be American-built and owned and operated by Americans, was conceived as a protectionist measure to shelter domestic shipbuilding.

More than 130 years later, however, the new tourism jobs and dollars promised by this venture and greeted with excitement by towns and cities along the Mississippi River, are being denied by the PVSA. The result is an interesting irony: today’s “America First” President may well do better to eliminate an “America First” law enacted by a prior one if he wants to create jobs and spur economic growth here at home.

FACTS INSTEAD OF FAKES

Forged documents alleging sexual misconduct and phony policy stances by lawmakers have ushered in a new climate of uncertainty as public allegations, buttressed by fake documents, are used as a political weapon. The name and signature of a former staffer for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was forged to allege sexual misconduct by the Senator, and a Republican candidate running against Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) tweeted a fake document that alleged the Congresswoman wanted to resettle “up to 41k” refugees in her California Congressional District. Here at Delve, we know that effective opposition research creates the foundation for any successful, fact-based public messaging campaign, and in our experience, political hits that work start with the facts instead of the fakes.

“UNAFFORDABLE” OR “UNCOMPETITIVE”?

Thirty-seven percent of uninsured Americans say the reason they are without health insurance is because they can’t afford it, yet one economist asserts that “unaffordable” health insurance is a myth – or at least is caused by government intervention that blocks the free market. Citing technological advances in affordable, mass-produced luxuries like personal computers, cell phones, and cars, John Tamny makes the case that “market-driven, entrepreneurial endeavor has a brilliant track record of turning scarcity into abundance.”

Given that functioning markets have allowed Americans at all income levels to afford more items than ever before, Tamny advises the same to drive down costs when it comes to health insurance policy: “Instead of replacing Obamacare with [Republicans’] own central plan, think about simply doing nothing other than ensuring there are no national governmental barriers limiting entrepreneurial entrance into the health insurance space.”

#LOBBYISTS #RESIST

When the final tax reform package was taking shape on Capitol Hill, the influence industry was using a variety of tactics to ensure their client’s interests and concerns were addressed in the final conference package. In a nod to the public nature of today’s policy debates, a lobbyist for the travel industry sought to kill an amendment supported by Delta Air Lines by sending emails to Republican tax writers with links the lobbyist claimed showed the airline’s consultants criticizing Trump, entitling one email, “Delta Lobbyists: RESIST.”

The implication was that Republicans shouldn’t reward the interests of those #resisting the President, but the people who were supposedly the airline’s consultants were actually those of an airline interest group. Now that traditional shoe-leather lobbying – and the smoke-filled rooms of the past – are no longer enough to achieve one’s public affairs objectives, companies need to make sure they have their research done right before deploying it against their opponents on Capitol Hill.

DYING TO STOP REGULATIONS

A recent Wall Street Journal investigation uncovered something the research bullpen at Delve has known for some time: millions of comments submitted to executive agencies on pending regulatory issues are fake, or even dead. Although it’s a felony to “knowingly make false, fictitious or fraudulent statements to a U.S. agency,” it’s not considered fraud if mass emailing comments have the authorization of the individuals named.

This law has not stopped campaigns and activists who promote or oppose a regulation from using the name and address of individuals without their knowing, or even submitting comments from the deceased. Officials on both sides of the political spectrum are planning to look into this practice to find ways to improve the integrity of the public comment process, however in the meantime, it is more important than ever to have a deeper understanding of what, who, and why is behind the oppositional forces on an issue.

Fireside Chat

Delve Founder & CEO Speaks At S&P Global Platts Pipeline Development & Expansion Conference

Delve Founder & CEO Speaks At S&P Global Platts Pipeline Development & Expansion Conference

The Stage: On Wednesday, Delve Founder & CEO Jeff Berkowitz spoke at the 12th Annual S&P Global Platts Pipeline Development & Expansion Conference in Houston, Texas. Joined onstage by Delve strategic partner & Off The Record Strategies CEO Mark Pfeifle, the two held a Fireside Chat to discuss preparing energy infrastructure companies for the new Age of Activism, using lessons learned from Delve’s and OTR’s teams on the ground during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests.

The Lessons: Being unprepared has consequences. Therefore:

  • Know who your opposition is: the key leaders and stakeholders; their motivations; understand their funding sources, tactics, and alliances.
  • Engage early and often, before you are in a fight: “You can win, but at what cost?”
  • Don’t expect the benefit of the doubt in a crisis. Get ahead of the curve with the facts and your own resources.

The Takeaway: We discovered that local law enforcement was facing well-organized, well-funded, and savvy professional energy infrastructure protesters. Although they left North Dakota, these professional protesters now have a roadmap of best practices to use on other energy infrastructure projects. And we’re already seeing them take action across the country.

All signs point to Dakota Access – the biggest story of 2016 after the presidential election – being a harbinger of what’s to come.

What’s on TAP for Healthcare and Tax Reform?

Here’s What You Need to Know

As Donald Trump is sworn into office tomorrow, eyes turn to what key industries can expect in his Administration. As part of The Administration Project (TAP), Delve has been analyzing and assessing the incoming administration’s personnel choices and policy cues to determine just that.

This week, we released the next two summaries of our insights:

  • Healthcare Issues Under The Radar: While most of the press and onlookers tracking healthcare policy under the Trump administration are focused on efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare, there are a number of other incredibly important policy fights flying under the media radar. These debates include drug pricing, Medicare reform, and major insurance company and hospital mergers.
  • Tax Reform Table Is Set, So Who Will Get To Eat? More so than at any point since the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the stars have aligned to make the collective dream of comprehensive tax reform a reality. With Republican control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, along with a cast of tax experts and dealmakers including Paul Ryan, Kevin Brady, Steve Mnuchin, Wilbur Ross, Chuck Schumer, and of course Donald Trump, the players needed to help make tax reform a reality are in place. How exactly the process takes shape will depend on a number of political variables, but the stage is certainly set for major policy action.

For a more comprehensive look at how the new Administration will impact these industries, check out our blog posts “What’s On TAP for Healthcare” and “What’s On TAP for Tax Reform.” Also, don’t forget to subscribe to TAP for weekly updates on the new Administration and access to custom research on-demand.

News You Can Use

NOT-SO-INDEPENDENT BOARD MEMBERS
Recently, the Delaware State Supreme Court issued a ruling that could imperil companies with too cozy a relationship with their supposedly independent directors. The decision found that members of the board of the online gaming company Zynga had too close a relationship with Zynga’s corporate officers (one board member even co-owned a private jet with an executive). This type of connection had not been seen as undermining independence in the past, but the Court agreed with shareholders who accused the board of breaching their fiduciary duty by allowing the company founder and controlling shareholder to trade on inside information. The long-term impact of the ruling is likely to be stricter scrutiny on boards and companies regarding the actual independence of board members. Look for concerned or activist shareholders to cast a wider net when examining such relationships in the future.

MNUCHIN MISDIRECTION OR SCHUMER SHAME?
Today the highly-anticipated confirmation hearing of President-elect Trump’s nominee to lead the Treasury Department, Steven Mnuchin, will begin and Democrats will almost certainly seek to use Mnuchin’s alleged role in the 2008 collapse of California’s IndyMac bank against him. Critics have used the collapse to tie Mnuchin to the 2008 housing crisis and home foreclosures, but a recent review of the details surrounding IndyMac’s failure reveals a different culprit – Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. The bank’s failure stemmed from a $100 million-a-day run on the bank that was prompted by a June 26, 2008 letter released by Schumer in which he told federal regulators he was “concerned that IndyMac’s financial deterioration poses significant risks to both taxpayers and borrower.” Schumer’s letter was seen as so irresponsible that the Office of Thrift Supervision specifically blamed Schumer for IndyMac’s collapse and a Democratic Comptroller of Currency called Schumer’s actions “incredibly stupid.” This example serves as an important reminder of how unreliable claims made during a confirmation hearing really can be.

THE INTERNET OF THINGS SPEAKS
If smart homes are going to become actually smart, the various “Internet of Things” devices trickling into houses will need to talk to each other. Yet, despite the growing number of home gadgets like Apple’s HomeKit, Samsung’s SmartThings, Amazon’s Alexa, Google Home, and more, a universal language between the “Internet of Things” does not exist – but it is in the works. Major tech companies including Intel, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Samsung, LG, and Sony are all quietly working toward this common language through an industry body called the Open Connectivity Foundation (OCF). The group is looking to provide the standard language for all “Internet of Things” devices to be able to communicate regardless of brand. But, with Apple and Google not participating, there is still a question of whether or not OCF can succeed. Setting up a standards body may also help these companies navigate the eventual policy and legal questions these devices raise.

IS GOVERNMENT ETHICS RIGGED?
Political commentator and longtime CPA Bruce Bialosky worries “that the entire ethics process is rigged against people who have succeeded outside government.” As he notes, “It is easy to put your net worth in a blind trust when all you have is your house, a few investments, and your multiple government pensions. But, it is a lot different when you have a boatload of money earned from a highly-successful career spanning 40 years.” The ethics bureaucracy, however, does not appreciate or care about that distinction. Their insistence that such successful businessmen who have not relied on the revolving door of Washington to build their wealth, divest entirely from it “would cause future potential citizens from ever taking important government positions.” Bialosky is certainly not “naïve as to the fact that a wealthy person may wish to become more wealthy. … But they have been asked to work for us at great sacrifice. They have multiple talents that career politicos do not. They also bring a fresh perspective. Most everyone wants to shake things up a little in Washington. … The only way to address this is bringing in fresh blood. We should not let the ethics industry stop us from having qualified people from outside government come in and do some ‘remodeling.’”

MOBILE BANKING FOR THE UNBANKED
Monese is a mobile banking app in the U.K. geared toward helping recent immigrants establish a firm financial footing in their new home. It is part of a trend of new tech companies looking to disrupt traditional banking systems while capitalizing on the underserved demographic of the less affluent, especially migrants who are bumping up against issues with confirming their identities. Having a bank account, and thus being able to have a debit or credit card, is crucial for modern existence, especially as some places around the world begin to move toward a trend of cash-free societies. Apps like Monese could provide the solution for the poorer communities that suffer in a cash-free system.

ARE WHITE COLLAR WORKERS DOOMED?
A recent study by McKinsey & Company has suggested that advancements in robotics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning could lead to a new age of automation that may endanger many white collar workers the way previous advancements have harmed manufacturing workers. The report’s key takeaway was an estimate that about half of all the activities people are paid to do in the world’s workforce, or $16 trillion in wages, could potentially be automated by adapting currently demonstrated technologies. What this figure may not be taking into account, however, is the fact that at some point, companies automating their workforce would result in a greatly diminished number of consumers who can pay for their goods and services. Going back to Henry Ford paying his factory workers enough to afford the Model T’s they were building, savvy employers have often ought to ensure their workers could afford their products, and that mentality could limit the accuracy of these predictions. Between that calculation and the churn of innovation creating new opportunities for new kinds of work, McKinsey’s Malthusian prediction seems unlikely to become a reality.

Mark Your Calendar

Friday, January 20 – Inauguration Day
Tuesday, January 31 – Year-End Federal Campaign Finance Reports Due

What’s on TAP for Energy and Financial Services?

Here’s What You Need to Know

As we approach Inauguration Day, eyes turn to what key industries can expect as Donald Trump takes office. As part of Delve’s The Administration Project (TAP), we have been analyzing and assessing the incoming administration’s personnel choices and policy cues to determine just that.

This week, we released two of four summaries of our insights:

  • Energy Surprises: During the campaign, the President-elect was bullish in his advocacy for expansion of domestic energy production through deregulation and a focus on oil, natural gas, and coal. Thus far, his Cabinet picks have tracked well with that goal. But, outside political and market forces, like state regulators crucial to oil and natural gas pipeline expansion, along with the energy market’s preference for natural gas over coal, may create roadblocks to achieving everything the new Administration has in mind. Likewise, renewable energy sources may not be as DOA in the new administration as some observers think, given incoming Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s record in Texas.
  • Financial Services Fights: Between the President-elect’s campaign rhetoric and the number of Wall Street veterans in his Cabinet, it’s difficult to pin down where the new Administration is likely to fall on issues important to the financial services industry. It also remains unclear how much of a priority items like regulating the growing fintech industry, addressing the regulations in Dodd-Frank, and the Labor Department’s “fiduciary rule,” are to the new Administration. The only thing that is clear on these issues? The battle lines are being drawn with conflicts likely to play out over the next four years, both within the industry, and the administration.

 For a more comprehensive look at how the new Administration will impact these industries, check out our blog posts “What’s On TAP for Energy” and “What’s On TAP for Financial Services.” Also, don’t forget to subscribe to TAP for weekly updates on the new Administration and access to custom research on-demand.

News You Can Use

MISSING FROM OBAMA’S FAREWELL
President Obama’s farewell address was half victory lap for his claimed accomplishments and half call to action for his supporters. Business columnist Caroline Baum recently predicted which key elements of the Obama legacy wouldn’t make the cut for Tuesdaynight’s speech. For the most part she was spot on, correctly predicting the President would fail to omit the fact that the economic expansion beginning in 2009 has been the weakest since World War II, the President’s failure to transfer his personal popularity to the rest of his party, the disengaged strategy the U.S. has taken in foreign policy over the past eight years, and his administration’s active avoidance of addressing radical Islamic terrorism. While President Obama did bring up the topic of race relations, claiming they have improved during his tenure in office, most Americans disagree with that assessment. These facts show the difficulty facing Obama in framing his legacy when many Americans rejected his policies and chosen successor at the polls just a few months ago.

INTERNATIONAL RACES TO WATCH IN ‘17
Foreign policy expert Kevin Lees recently outlined several key elections around the world to watch for indications of any continuing patterns of changing global political dynamics. Referendums on current regimes will (or are likely to occur) in India with provincial legislative assembly elections, Mexico’s state gubernatorial election, and Venezuela’s regional and municipal elections along with a possible presidential recall vote. Several parliamentary and presidential elections throughout Western Europe –  including those in France, The Netherlands, Germany, and Italy – will be major tests of whether the EU continues to see populist nationalism grow as it did in 2016. The makeup of the new Politburo in China, while not technically an election, will offer insights into how the country plans to navigate a Trump-led Unites States. How these elections unfold could have a significant impact on how the incoming Trump administration approaches bilateral and multilateral issues around the globe.

EURO-REGULATORS’ NEXT TARGET: DATA
Regulators, especially those in Europe, are looking at the data capabilities of big tech firms like Google and Facebook as a possible target for future regulations. Policymakers and academics have suggested the advantages these companies’ data resources give them could represent a barrier to entry for other companies and stifle possible innovation and competition. Opponents of the growing EU regulatory regime have pointed out how potential new rules could punish companies as they seek to use data to improve service for users, serving as a major hindrance to the burgeoning field of artificial intelligence technology that requires large sets of data to be effective. This policy area may well be the next major antitrust policy fight between global tech firms and the EU, which has already targeted companies like Apple, Amazon, and Google for various allegedly anti-competitive practices. 

AMBULANCE EMERGENCY
Dr. Geoffrey Hosta, a 30-year veteran emergency room doctor, recently published a piece sounding the alarm on the serious, growing issue of “ambulance waste.” Patients are using ambulances who do not medically need them, resulting in regular instances of such vehicles not being available for serious, life-threatening injuries they are meant to respond to. Hosta enumerated instances of ambulance waste ranging from stubbed toes, to minor ankle sprains, to an alcoholic who requested an ambulance every day because the hospital was near his favorite liquor store. Cities are considering a range of policies to solve this problem, including projects to allow doctors to use tablets to video chat with patients, processes where 911 dispatchers can determine the necessity of an ambulance, and apps that could allow paramedics to video chat with patients who request their services. As the devil would be in the details to any such policies, look for tech innovators to introduce solutions to ambulance waste that may have larger value throughout the healthcare market.

HOW TRUMP’S TRADE BATTLE IS, AND ISN’T, LIKE REAGAN’S
In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Holman Jenkins Jr. traces President-elect Trump’s current war against Detroit automakers who seek to move auto manufacturing overseas back to the Reagan trade policies of the 1980’s (spearheaded by people like Robert Lighthizer, who was recently nominated to be U.S. Trade Representative). Trump, much like Reagan, secured the election thanks largely to the support of blue-collar American workers, like those in the auto industry. Both men made promises to protect these workers’ jobs. But whereas Reagan waged his trade war against Japanese automakers, Trump must wage his against many U.S. auto manufacturers themselves. Jenkins points out that Trump’s criticism has focused exclusively on the exportation of jobs related to the manufacturing of less profitable small-car assembly, and stayed away from the more profitable business of exporting American-built SUVs to foreigners. Between that and reportedly strong signals that compliance by automakers will be rewarded with a relaxation of the Obama administration’s fuel mileage standards, Detroit could see brighter days ahead even as it is buffeted by the tumultuous winds of Trump tweets.

Mark Your Calendar

Friday, January 20 – Inauguration Day
Tuesday, January 31 – Year-End Federal Campaign Finance Reports Due