Tag: Green New Deal

Texas Goes Off-Grid

By David Amaya

Amid President Biden’s plan to boost America's dependence on renewable energy, Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a retaliatory executive order. It directs “every state agency to use all lawful powers and tools to challenge any federal action that threatens” natural gas in the state. Only three weeks after Abbott’s attempt to strengthen the natural gas industry’s defenses against federal oversight, the state’s entire energy grid nearly collapsed. Sources reveal that Texas was minutes and seconds away from a complete shutdown that would have lasted for months. 

Several state leaders gave excuses as to why the state’s vulnerable power system failed millions of Texans. Gov. Abbott blamed non-renewables for the outage though 26 of the total 30 gigawatts lost in the blackout were traced back to natural gas. Former Republican Gov. Rick Perry stated that Texans would rather lose power than be part of the national grid system, as the state recorded several fatalities from hypothermia, including the death of 11-year-old Cristian Pavon. Despite being warned of the grid’s vulnerability in 2011, Texas took no action to weatherize the equipment. Texan leadership, in private and public sectors, failed us. 

It is time Texas reframe climate change policy as infrastructure policy. Infrastructure policy includes more than merely weatherizing energy equipment; It calls for the mitigation of the severity a polar vortex has on roads and property by reducing carbon emissions. Texas has its energy grid system to show off its exceptionalism, but those days are now over. Think of millions of Texans observing how the free-market failed them. Depending on what Texas does next, the federal government may need to intrude and be part of the solution that regulates the industry. 

Texas may well have looked at California to develop a Plan B for its constituents in the event of a blackout. California forces its energy providers to have a reserve of electricity for this exact reason. Not only that, but California is also part of a broader national energy-grid that allows them to borrow energy from other states. Texas has no such security. It relies on free-market competition to resolve these changes in energy demand. Texas, like California, must force the energy sector to come up with safeguards; the state has enforcement power for a reason. 

Texans survived nature’s cold shoulder and the folly of Texas leadership. Despite the differences in each state’s party politics, California and Texas both have experience with large-scale energy blackouts, which feel like the beginning of a new era of energy security for the entire country. When reality transcends the need for performative politics (i.e., focusing on the national anthem in football games instead of urgent issues), nature’s forces remind us that party ID alone won’t help us adapt to changing climate. Informed and responsible leadership will. A reconciliation between energy practices that sets aside cynicism for uniting cooperation is desperately needed. As Texas has come to understand, electricity is as important to our society’s foundation as democracy.

_____
•Read Stephen Macaulay’s commentary on President Biden’s supply chain review — Click on Forum above.

Texas and California are Polar Opposites on Energy Regulation

By Todd Lassa

The Texas legislature has begun a comprehensive investigation on What Went Wrong, a week after a severe winter storm pushed its power grid within “minutes from failing” with three hearings by four state House and Senate committees. 

More than 13 million state residents suffered no heat and electricity in sub-freezing temperatures as the Electric Reliability Council of Texas issued rolling blackouts to prevent a total collapse that experts say could have left the state without power for months.

Critics of Texas’ independent streak blame a policy that prevents the state from “borrowing” energy from neighboring states, in order to avoid federal regulations. Equipment at natural gas, coal and nuclear facilities became frozen and broke down, Time magazine reports, adding that after the last Texas freeze that caused blackouts, in 2011, federal regulators recommended the state weatherize energy equipment, including pipes, valves and other things necessary to keep the grid operating. When power in the state was back up again, many consumers were hit with energy bills of $10,000 and more, the result of unregulated price spikes by ERCOT for energy providers.  

Perhaps trying to divert attention from the real problem that was affecting millions of Texans, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott blamed the state’s wind turbines that failed due to iced-up windmill parts and solar panels that collect no sunlight when it’s not sunny. (34 gigawatts were down in Texas on February 15, with wind representing just 4 gigawatts of that total.) Fox News’ prime time commentators directed blame to the “Green New Deal” proposal by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, to combat climate change, even though it remains only a proposal.

The energy crisis in Texas draws comparison with rolling blackouts in California last summer and fall, which were the result of extreme weather on the opposite end of the spectrum. California’s “first rolling blackouts in nearly 20 years,” according to the Los Angeles Times, affected less than half a million homes and businesses on August 14, for between 15 minutes and 2-1/2 hours at a time, with 321,000 more customers experiencing eight-minute to 90-minute blackouts the next evening. 

Extreme heat and forest wildfires across the state caused the blackouts, and because neighboring states also suffered record high temperatures, California was not able to buy power from them.

California energy officials “didn’t line up the right sources and didn’t take climate change” causing the extreme temperatures “into account,” according to the LA Times.

As usual in politics, it comes down to following the money. Either state could proceed at considerable cost building out renewable energy sources with the hope the burgeoning industry will create new jobs, or continue to protect relatively cheap, relatively reliable fossil fuel sources and maintain that industry’s level of employment.  

It raises the issue of regulation vs. de-regulation – and even the question of what regulation is for a public utility.

Fortunately, we have a left-column pundit from Texas, and a right-column pundit from California, to sort this all out.

_____
•Read Stephen Macaulay’s commentary on President Biden’s supply chain review — Click on Forum above.

•Email comments to editors@thehustings.news

Texas Faces California’s ‘Green’ Energy Supply

By Bryan Williams

Welcome to the club, Texas! California has been mismanaging its electrical power grid for going on 20 years. How can the two largest states in the nation by population, both with vast natural resources and human ingenuity fail their residents like this? It is 2021. Citizens should not be without electricity in the United States because of  political and managerial problems.

That Texas is red and California is blue is also a conundrum. How can both political parties (California has been run by Democrats for nearly a generation -- Governator Schwarzenegger acted like a Republican for all of two years or so -- but that’s for another column -- and Texas, dominated by Republicans) get this so wrong?

I can’t speak to Texas’ woes, but I can to California’s. Democratic Gov. Gray Davis rushed in where only fools dare tread back in 2001, and actually put the state into the electricity buying business using taxpayer dollars, in order to stave off erroneous shortages of electricity due to market manipulation of California’s electricity supply. By the late 2010s and early 2020s, California’s electricity problem developed different causes with the same results: Millions left without power in the state that gave us the iPhone, PayPal, Tesla, and is home to Alphabet/Google, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Stanford University (that is to say -- places with LOTS of smart people.

Why? Because for years our politicians have replaced reliable electrical production with renewable resources like solar and wind to save us from the evils of CO2 pollution. When the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, California is a net exporter of electricity. But the sun sometimes is hidden behind clouds, and the wind doesn’t always blow. Meanwhile, the state’s nearly 40 million residents need more and more electricity to power those iPhones, Teslas, and all those Chromebooks (made by Google – one of which I am typing on now) that millions of kids need to be taught at home due to COVID school shutdowns. A brilliant, potential solution to California’s unstable energy supply is to use old electric car batteries to store excess electricity from solar and wind farms, but those “battery farms” are still years away. Really, how will that look to have stacks and stacks of greasy old car batteries next to those gleaming solar panels?

At the same time, baseline electricity production like (brace yourselves - I’m going to say something controversial) clean nuclear power is being shut down all over the state. Why? Because anything nuclear must be bad (right?), and because of short-sighted politicians in Washington, our nuclear power plants aren’t allowed to recycle their fuel like those in Europe, so we have to store spent nuclear fuel rods in pools of water in open air. Brilliant!

As for natural gas power plants, they emit too much CO2, and use fossil fuels to make electricity, though the California plants make more than enough energy from this to feed the entire state. What about hydro-electric power? Here’s another clean, renewable source of electricity, right? More and more of these century-old plants are being decommissioned because California’s left-leaning politicians are worried about their effect on fish. Meanwhile, California ratepayers (who pay the highest rates in the nation) get to sit in the dark and the heat, and now, the smoke. Now, California utilities are allowed to shut off power for wildfires sparked on land that state and federal political officials have for years failed to clear out. Meanwhile, those same politicians have failed to hold our electric utilities accountable for running the shoddy equipment that can spark fires, in the first place.

So to repeat, welcome, Texas! One question: When can we shut down the politicians and get back to the basics of providing electricity in the richest state in the richest nation in the world?

_____
•Read Stephen Macaulay’s commentary on President Biden’s supply chain review — Click on Forum above.

Business Community Pivots from Trump

By Todd Lassa

General Motors CEO Mary Barra (pictured) has announced that by the end 2025 there will be some 20 electric vehicles available to customers in the U.S. — 40 percent of all products on offer in its showrooms — which will go a long way toward the automaker meeting strict 2026 California fuel economy standards. But Barra waited until Michigan certified its 16 Electoral College votes would go to President-elect Joe Biden, to announce the automaker would separate from President Trump’s three-year plus legal proceedings to end the state’s special waiver allowing its own emissions laws.  

The California standard eases the Obama administration’s federal 54.5-mpg average by 2025, to about 51-mpg by 2026, while the Trump administration has sought a 40-mpg standard instead. GM, Toyota Motor and Fiat Chrysler signed on with the administration. Toyota, which built a reputation for low emissions and high fuel efficiency with its Prius hybrids, had said it joined Trump’s legal efforts because it prefers a single federal standard, no matter what the level.

Historically, until now, the standard set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has been tougher than the federal standard. California has had a waiver from the federal government to set its own rules since the late 1960s, and 16 high-population Eastern states long ago signed on. It must be noted that the corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards, whether 40 mpg or 54.5 mpg, do not literally mean automakers must meet those numbers – there are very complicated formulas for determining each car or truck models’ average. 

But with its fleet of zero-emission EVs on the way over the next few years, GM could reasonably have joined Ford Motor Company, BMW, Volvo, Volkswagen Group (which has aggressive plans for a fleet of its own EV models) and Honda (which is partnering with GM on EV projects) when they signed on with California on its 51-mpg average. 

Legal efforts to lower the future standard undoubtedly will end with Biden’s inauguration Jan. 20, when the president-elect will add a special envoy for climate to his cabinet. Biden has chosen John Kerry, Obama’s second secretary of state, who helped negotiate the Paris Agreement on climate change (another accomplishment that Trump reversed), for the post. 

Trump often attacked Biden as beholden to the Democratic Party’s progressive wing and a commitment to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal.” In the second presidential debate, held in late October, Trump predicted that Biden would lose Pennsylvania’s electoral votes for his commitment to turn the United States into a net-zero producer of climate-warming pollutants by 2035, and to cut total emissions to zero by 2050. For the time being, at least, Biden appears to be carving out a middle road between climate change activists and the fossil fuel industry.

Barra’s announcement Monday coincided with the administrator of the General Services Administration, Emily W. Murphy, acknowledging nearly two weeks after the fact that former Vice President Biden had won the election, which in turn allowed the transition process to commence. It also coincided with the efforts of  “160 top American executives” who signed a letter to the Trump asking him to acknowledge Biden’s victory and begin an orderly transition, The New York Times reported Nov. 24. Some of the signatories also threatened to withhold campaign contributions to Sens. Kelly Loefler and David Purdue, two incumbent Republicans seeking re-election in a January runoff in Georgia. If they both lose, the Democrats will gain majority control of the Senate. 

It seems fairly clear that the business world has moved on from Trump and his policies.

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–
PHOTO CREDIT: General Motors

Can Biden Work with The Squad and Centrist Republicans?

By Todd Lassa

As moderates and traditionalists continue to wrestle the Republican Party from the hands of President Trump and his most faithful populist followers, the Democratic Party is mirroring its cross-aisle rivals with a similar struggle. President-elect Joe Biden and his transition team, though hobbled by Trump’s aversion to conceding the election, are working hard to take the middle road and avoid concessions to The Squad led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., as well as voters who would rather have voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., as the Democratic Party’s nominee. 

Democrats this election season have been uncharacteristically low-key compared with the GOP about infighting between centrists and their respective hardline wings. Biden’s record 79-million-plus votes Nov. 3 certainly includes both an unknown number of centrist Republicans who never would have voted for Sanders, or for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), for that matter, as well as young Democrats who would have preferred Sanders.

But the 2020 “Blue Wave” never happened. Biden must govern from the White House with Republicans increasing their minority in the House of Representatives by at least six seats and with Senate leadership depending on Georgia’s special January runoff elections for both of its seats. Democratic candidates must win both runoffs for a 50-50 count in the Senate, with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris to serve as the tie-breaker. Even if that long-shot happens, Biden will face a recalcitrant Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who infamously vowed 12 years ago to make Barack Obama a one-term president and will undoubtedly lead his fellow Republican senators in key filibusters. 

Already, Capitol Hills pundits are talking about how Biden will have to rule by executive order, where he can, to reverse some of the policies that Trump is rushing to implement in his waning time as president, including efforts to begin the final process of leasing parts of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil companies. 

The future of the fossil fuel industry and potential for alternatives to gain prominence is central to both sides, of course, including traditional pro-business Republicans and Democrats like Ocasio-Cortez, who with Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., unveiled the Green New Deal shortly after she took office in early 2019. 

At presstime, President-elect Biden’s cabinet picks were beginning to emerge and they are largely considered centrists. Anthony Blinken will be nominated for secretary of state according to Bloomberg, Linda Greenfield-Thomas will be tapped for United Nations ambassador and Jake Sullivan, former aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will be national security advisor. The Biden transition team already has confirmed that longtime advisor Ron Klain will be the 46th president’s chief of staff.

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Veep Debate Marks Brief Return to 2020-Style Normalcy

By Charles Dervarics

After a chaotic face-off last week between President Trump and Democrat Joe Biden, Wednesday night’s debate between the vice presidential nominees offered a brief return to normalcy – at least as normal as it gets in 2020.

Despite major disagreements, Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., debated civilly (for the most part) and delivered effective talking points on everything from COVID-19 to China and the Supreme Court. Not that it was exactly like debates of old: Plexiglas separated the candidates due to health concerns after positive COVID tests for the president and others at the White House. The night also was historic with the participation of Harris, the first woman of color on a major party presidential ticket.

But as the nation prepares to choose between the oldest presidential nominees in history, both Pence and Harris offered some depth on issues in what could be a preview of the 2024 campaign.

The debate began with a focus on COVID-19, as Pence claimed the administration had undertaken the “greatest national mobilization since World War II” while Harris charged that the White House was not truthful with the American people. On a vaccine, she added, “If Donald Trump tells us to take it, I’m not taking it.”

But the issue didn’t crowd out other topics, and both clearly had messages for swing state voters. Pence criticized the Green New Deal and accused Democrats of wanting to halt fracking. Harris talked up Biden’s plans for jobs and economic revival, including more support for education and manufacturing.

Pence sidestepped some questions – including the future of the Affordable Care Act – and Harris would not answer if Democrats plan to expand the Supreme Court if the Senate approves the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. Look for more intensive media queries on those topics this month.

Both also routinely pushed the boundaries of time limits set by moderator Susan Page of USA Today – Pence seemed to be the worst offender there – although Page kept the debate from going off the rails. 

As someone who covered the first debate with a woman running for vice president – George H.W. Bush vs. Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 – the differences between that night and last night were stark. In 1984, the first question to Ferraro was how she could compare herself to Bush, a congressman, ambassador, and CIA Director before becoming Ronald Reagan’s VP. Ferraro later chided Bush for taking a condescending tone and near the end, the male moderator joked with Bush about the World Series. All of that was very 1984, and a far cry from what transpired last night. 

Trump and Biden are up next on the debate calendar, scheduled for a Town Hall-style meeting Oct. 15, but it’s not clear at press time if the event will take place. The Commission on Presidential Debates has announced plans to make it a virtual event, and President Trump said Oct. 8 he does not plan to participate under that format.

Charles Dervarics is a writer and policy analyst in Alexandria, Va.

—–