Overnight Energy: Trump to buy crude oil to help industry | Sanders, Democrats decry assistance to oil companies amid coronavirus | Judge sides with California in cap-and-trade lawsuit

FILL ‘ER UP: President Trump said Friday that the U.S. would purchase “large quantities” of crude oil in order to help the industry, which has been hit by sinking prices this week. 

“Based on the price of oil, I’ve also instructed the Secretary of Energy to purchase, at a very good price, large quantities of crude oil for storage in the U.S. Strategic Reserve,” he said during a Friday appearance in the Rose Garden to discuss the coronavirus. “We’re going to fill it right up to the top.”

An Energy Department official told The Hill in an email that the strategic reserve has the capacity to store up to 77 million additional barrels of crude oil. 

As of Friday afternoon, American oil prices appeared to be slightly over $33 per barrel. If the U.S. were to purchase the full 77 million barrels to fill the strategic reserve at $33 per barrel, it would cost more than $2.5 billion. 

Trump said that the move would assist the U.S. oil industry and help the country achieve energy independence. 

On Monday, U.S. oil prices fell nearly 25 percent amid issues relating to the coronavirus as well as an ongoing trade dispute between Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Previously, the administration had planned to sell crude oil from the strategic reserve to raise money for upgrades and maintenance at the facility. 

Energy Department spokeswoman Jess Szymanski said in a statement earlier this week that the sale would be suspended “in light of the recent fluctuations in global oil markets.”

Pushback from Dems, greens: Reports that the administration might seek to boost the industry in light of the plunge were met with criticism by many Democrats. 

In a Thursday letter to Trump, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) wrote that “using federal assistance — including low-interest loans, royalty relief, tax breaks, or strategic petroleum reserve purchases — in order to prop up oil companies would be a wasteful misuse of government resources that would exacerbate the climate crisis.” 

An environmental group also slammed the Friday announcement. 

“This action speaks volumes about Trump’s priorities at a moment of national crisis. At a time when millions of Americans could be thrown into economic disaster, Trump is taking decisive action to protect polluter profits,” said a statement from Lukas Ross, a senior policy analyst with Friends of the Earth. 

Hold on: Some in the industry have also said they do not want federal assistance.

Mike Sommers, the president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute (API) this week told Fox Business, “We want the market to work, so we’re not interested in what some people are proposing right now in terms of federal bailouts.”

Read more on Trump’s decision here.

And click here for more on the criticism from Democrats. 

TGIF! Welcome to Overnight Energy, The Hill’s roundup of the latest energy and environment news. Please send tips and comments to Rebecca Beitsch at rbeitsch@digital-release.thehill.com. Follow her on Twitter: @rebeccabeitsch. Reach Rachel Frazin at rfrazin@digital-release.thehill.com or follow her on Twitter: @RachelFrazin.

CALIFORNIA V. TRUMP, PART INFINITY: A federal judge in California dealt a blow to the Trump administration as it seeks to invalidate the state’s cap-and-trade program.

The Department of Justice sued the state in October, arguing that California’s program to reduce vehicle emissions, done in collaboration with the Canadian province of Quebec, was akin to an international treaty beyond the scope of the powers of a state.

But Judge William Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, a George H. W. Bush appointee, rejected that argument late Thursday. 

“‘Treaty’ is a term of art,” Shubb wrote. “The Supreme Court has come to understand that not all international agreements … constitute treaties in the constitutional sense.'” 

The program, underway since 2013, aims to improve California’s air quality, capping emissions from the transportation sector while allowing companies to trade credits with others in the province of Quebec.

California described the agreement as a nonbinding sign of good faith, a point the judge backed, noting that each program is run independently. It also doesn’t veer into territory typically overseen by the federal government.

“This agreement is not a treaty creating an alliance for purposes of peace and war … nor does it constitute a treaty for ‘mutual government’ or represent a ‘cession of sovereignty.'” Shubb wrote.

Two other points in the case are still being litigated.

The full story is here. 

ON TAP NEXT WEEK: SPRING BREAK! The Senate, however, canceled their recess to focus on passing coronavirus aid.

OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY:

Maryland House OKs ban on plastic carryout bags, The Baltimore Sun reports

Indiana lawmakers approve bill to end state regulation of certain wetlands, The Indianapolis Star reports

Michigan Legislature approves $600,000 to demolish green goo site, the Associated Press reports 

ICYMI: Stories from Friday…

Trump says government will buy crude oil to help industry

Federal judge sides with California in cap-and-trade suit

Sanders, Democrats decry possibility of assistance to oil companies amid coronavirus outbreak