Renewables companies are pushing to kill an obscure provision of the Coast Guard authorization that they contend could stall offshore wind development, Nick writes.

Why it matters: Industry believes that the domestic ship crewing requirements in the bill — which passed this week — threaten access to the specialized ships it needs at a time when it's already facing delays and cancellations.

• The language would essentially require offshore vessel crews to either be American or match the nationality of the ship's flag.

Driving the news: In a letter obtained by Axios, the American Clean Power Association told Hill leadership that the provision "threatens to materially disrupt the offshore wind industry."

• "These mandates risk jeopardizing the creation of thousands of good-paying American jobs, the development of more than 40 U.S.-flagged offshore wind vessels, and billions of dollars' worth of domestic manufacturing investments," wrote JC Sandberg, ACP's chief advocacy officer.
• An issue for offshore wind — and oil — companies is that the unique ships they require don't really exist at scale in the U.S. right now. So the provision could make it tough to access those vessels and get them crewed.

The other side: Reps. Garret Graves and John Garamendi have been trying to get this language onto the Coast Guard or defense authorization bills for a few years.

• It's supported by marine vessel operators, who argue it would simply close a loophole that allows foreign-flagged vessels "a massive cost advantage."
• Graves told Nick that allowing Russian and Chinese mariners into our waters doesn't make sense.
• Ted Cruz — the top Republican on Commerce, the Senate jurisdictional committee — has opposed it in previous years, forming a strange bedfellow alliance on the issue with Ed Markey and other renewables supporters.

Between the lines: The American Petroleum Institute has opposed the provision, and lobbying disclosure forms show oil companies are bringing this up behind closed doors, too.

• But the fact that lawmakers from Louisiana — a massive offshore oil producer — support this "tells you that there's something there maybe that needs to be addressed," Graves said.

What we're watching: Graves is optimistic he'll be successful in conference this time, but we could see a compromise emerge.

• "We have heard the concerns [from industry], and we have offered to sit down and work with them. We've talked about grandfathering in — things along those lines," he said.

An Energy Department decision to move ahead with a temporary storage site for high-level commercial spent fuel returns Congress to the forefront of the nuclear waste debate, Chuck writes.

Why it matters: Before any federally-run storage facility could be built, lawmakers would have to amend the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

Driving the news: The department announced this week it's pursuing a federal temporary storage project.

• Absent a central location, about 90,000 metric tons of nuclear reactors' spent fuel is being stored at more than 70 plants.
• The only permanent U.S. nuclear waste disposal site, New Mexico's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, is solely for weapons-generated waste and doesn't accept spent fuel.

The agency already has started on a "consent-based siting" process that doesn't dictate where to eventually put waste.

Zoom in: A federal appeals court recently vacated the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's license to Holtec International Corp. to temporarily store spent nuclear reactor fuel in southeastern New Mexico. The court ruled that private companies' efforts can't supersede the feds'.

• A separate proposed private-storage site, in nearby West Texas, also has faced legal challenges. Some observers believe the Supreme Court will have to settle the question of private interim storage.

Our thought bubble: The department's decision won't please House E&C Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers and others who want Nevada's mothballed Yucca Mountain made the permanent — not interim — disposal site.

• But given that Nevada's a key swing state, no presidential candidate is likely to agree.
• Environmentalists don't like interim storage, either, arguing that there's no guarantee a "temporary" site won't become permanent.

House GOP appropriators want to trim Interior and EPA programs again, but they might spare them the deep cuts they proposed last year, Nick writes.

Why it matters: EPA and some Interior bureaus already got haircuts this year, as the agencies scramble to push IRA and infrastructure law money out the door.

Driving the news: Approps Chair Tom Cole today offered a look at the allocations for each subcommittee, with cuts across the board for non-defense spending.

• The Interior-environment bill would get $39.6 billion, compared to the $41.2 billion bill Congress passed earlier this year.
• That's a smaller cut than other agencies might see, and it's much more funding than the initial $25.4 billion spending bill House Republicans offered in fiscal 2024.
• The energy-water title, meanwhile, could see $25 billion in non-defense spending, which is similar to the fiscal 2024 enacted level.

Yes, but: These are "interim" numbers, per the committee, that could change as the process moves forward.

What's next: Both titles are set for markups on June 28.

☀️ 1. The sun sometimes sets: The Biden administration is ending a tariff exemption for the bifacial panels used in utility-scale solar projects.

• Manufacturers had been pushing for it, but it's another trade move that's divided the industry.
• The administration also announced tweaks this morning to the domestic content bonus tax credit for renewables projects, which could make it easier for everyone to use it.

⚖️ 2. Liftoff: Speaking of solar trade, the Commerce Department yesterday announced it had initiated action on the Southeast Asia anti-dumping petition from manufacturers.

• That's probably a bigger deal for the industry than the new solar cell tariffs on China.

📈 3. AI emissions watch: Microsoft's emissions last year were nearly 30% higher than in 2020, Axios' Ben Geman writes. That's the kind of stat that could rewire the energy debate on the Hill.