HOPE 2 win

10/15, see main older

see win

bak 1019

---

12 24 YMAIL

Today, the highest court of Montana agreed: Children have fundamental rights to a safe and livable climate!!

16 Montana youth held their government accountable for harming their fundamental rights to health, safety, liberty, dignity, equal protection of the law, and a clean and healthful environment. Our youth clients’ voices were heard. The Montana Supreme Court has upheld science-based protections for a safe and healthy climate, affirming that fossil fuel pollution is incompatible with children’s constitutional rights and that an environmental life support system includes a stable climate system.

This was a resounding 6:1 victory!

---

===

OCT win Montana and HI

ymail 6 24 no lnx tbl

We’re excited to share the news that youth plaintiffs in Navahine v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation have secured a historic victory!

Thirteen years in the making, Navahine v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation is the first settlement in a constitutional climate case bringing systemic decarbonization of a state transportation system.

Yesterday, in a joint press conference with Hawaiʻi Governor Josh Green and Department of Transportation (HDOT) Director Edwin Sniffen, youth plaintiffs and their attorneys announced the groundbreaking settlement agreement, recognizing children’s constitutional rights to a life-sustaining climate and mobilizing the Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation (HDOT) to plan and implement transformative changes to fully decarbonize Hawaiʻi’s economy and transportation system by 2045!

Youth plaintiff Navahine with Governor Josh Green

Youth plaintiff Navahine speaks at press conference with Governor Josh Green.

My Voice. My Rights. Our Future. pix

This is Huge!

Navahine v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation is the world’s first, youth-led constitutional climate case addressing climate pollution from the transportation sector. Thirteen youth from across the Hawaiian Islands brought the case in June 2022, asserting their rights to a safe and healthy climate and asking the Hawaiʻi state government to join with them, taking necessary actions to meet the climate emergency and enable Hawaiʻi’s paradigm shift to a climate-safe, zero emissions transportation system. Many of the Navahine plaintiffs are Native Hawaiian youth who are already experiencing climate change harms like sea level rise, drought, floods, and fires, which have threatened their lives and their ability to perpetuate cultural practices.

In the settlement agreement, HDOT and defendants have agreed to take all actions necessary to achieve Zero Emissions no later than 2045 for ground transportation, sea, and interisland air transportation, including:

Establishing a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan within one year of the Agreement, laying the foundation and roadmap to fully decarbonize Hawaiʻi’s transportation system within the next 20 years, and offering a replicable model for transportation systems around the world.

Reforming the Department of Transportation’s budgeting and programming to prioritize the decarbonization of transportation.

Creating a new leadership unit that will be responsible for ensuring new policies are implemented, and benchmarks and targets are met in the time required to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.

Providing youth with a seat at the table, requiring HDOT to keep Navahine plaintiffs informed, providing them with opportunities to provide feedback and input into shaping policies, and establishing a volunteer youth council to advise on HDOT’s commitments in the years to come.

The Court will continue to hold jurisdiction to ensure all terms of the agreement are met.

The Navahine Settlement Agreement is unparalleled in its nature, scope, and length in terms of an implementation plan to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions, anywhere. The transportation sector is the largest source of emissions in the US, and the third largest globally. By reforming its transportation system, Hawai’i will be a model for governments across the country and around the world.

My Voice. My Rights. Our Future. pix

Navahine grows from more than a decade of work by 169 plaintiffs represented by Our Children’s Trust nationally, and globally to get the Court engaged in recognizing and protecting youth climate rights. Nine years ago, Juliana v. United States transformed the judicial landscape by recognizing, for the first time, that youth hold rights to a stable climate system that protects human life and liberty. Inspired by Juliana, the Hawai’i Supreme Court similarly recognized a constitutional right to a life-sustaining climate system under state law, setting the stage for yesterday’s win.

The case, built on 13 years of work by Our Children’s Trust, marks a pivotal moment in the fight for climate justice, made possible in collaboration with the community of Hawai’i, our local partners at Earthjustice, and with the backing of people like you. Our collective triumph validates the rights of youth in Hawai’i and paves the way for actionable solutions for current and future generations, inspiring a renewed commitment to protecting our planet.

===

08/26/24

Media Matters statement on winning injunction against Missouri AG Andrew Bailey in federal court

Written by Media Matters Staff

Published 08/26/24

Media Matters President and CEO Angelo Carusone issued the following statement after Judge Amit Mehta of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted Media Matters a preliminary injunction against Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey.

“A federal judge has clearly seen this coordinated effort by state attorneys general for what it is – sucking up to Elon Musk and abusing the power of their offices to intimidate researchers and stifle accurate reporting by Musk's critics. Andrew Bailey was one of those AGs that took up the call and he was defeated.

“The judge’s decision is a victory for free speech and a warning to other AGs and like-minded bad actors that the constitution does not allow for this type of meritless, retaliatory, harassing effort to suppress free speech.”

Key takeaways from the order:

As Judge Mehta noted, Media Matters was the target of politically motivated “retaliation” by law enforcement that “chilled” our “protected expression” and First Amendment rights.

* The U.S. District Court also affirmed that Media Matters’ reporting is “protected speech” and has been corroborated by other media outlets and even X Corp.

According to Judge Mehta “‘the most heinous act in which a democratic government can engage is to use its law enforcement machinery for political ends.’ … That apparently is what has occurred here.”

* The U.S. District Court affirmed that AG Bailey’s own “public statements are direct evidence of retaliatory intent” against Media Matters, and “retaliation for protected expression was likely his true motive for investigating Media Matters.”

The same day that X Corp. filed a meritless lawsuit against Media Matters for America for an accurate report on the platform’s extremism, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened a similarly specious investigation into MMFA under Texas’ deceptive trade practices act. Paxton subsequently issued an overbroad and invasive civil investigative demand – despite the fact that Media Matters has no relevant connection to Texas. On April 12, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta granted Media Matters a preliminary injunction against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Weeks after Paxton issued his demand, Missouri AG Andrew Bailey claimed to open his own investigation into Media Matters. Bailey ultimately filed a Civil Investigative Demand against the organization on March 25, 2024 – despite the fact that Media Matters has no relevant connection to Missouri. According to Bailey himself, he is coordinating with Paxton in his “war” against Media Matters and his Missouri Demand is “virtually identical” to Paxton’s Texas Demand. On April 24, 2024, Judge Mehta permitted Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey to be a defendant in Media Matters’ suit against Paxton.

The nonpartisan U.S. Press Freedom Tracker which catalogs press freedom violations in the United States recently recorded incident reports related to the Texas attorney general's investigation and the Missouri attorney general’s investigation in their database.

===}:

===

6 24 gmail moraNO bs //

Battery breakthrough could supercharge transition to renewable energy - MSN

MSN

Researchers say they have discovered a way to make a highly efficient form of battery cheap enough to be commercially viable on a massive scale, ...

---

===

an 3 24

Earlier this week, CNN reported that the Judicial Conference of the United States announced a new rule that would that would shut down "judge shopping" — a tactic conservative attorneys general and conservative litigants have used to file challenges against liberal policies and laws.

The new policy requires federal district courts to "randomly assign a judge to a lawsuit if the suit aims to block any federal or state law, executive order or regulation," the Hill reports.

"I’m really proud that we did this," 6th Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton said in response to the announcement.

However, according to the Associated Press, two days later, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) condemned the move "on the Senate floor and joined with two other GOP senators to send letters to a dozen chief judges around the country suggesting they" ignore it.

In a Sunday, March 17 op-ed published by MSNBC, University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck points out the hypocrisy in not only McConnell's — but US Senator John Cornyn's (R-TX) and Thom Tillis' (R-NC) — opposition to the rule, too.

"So why are these three Republican senators so upset by the proposed reform?" Vladeck asks. "The answer is obvious: because it will make it harder to guarantee that specific judges will hear specific lawsuits — whether individual Republican appointees hearing challenges to Democratic policies, or vice versa."

Vladeck writes:

Plaintiffs have increasingly taken advantage of these 'single-judge' divisions to steer nationwide federal policy challenges to specific, ideologically sympathetic judges. For example, the nationwide challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone (one of two drugs used in the most common and safest abortion procedure) was filed in Amarillo, Texas — not a courthouse with any specific connection to mifepristone, but one in which it had a 100% chance of being assigned to a certain Trump-appointed district judge, former anti-abortion advocate Matthew Kacsmaryk. Kacsmaryk remarkably, if predictably, ruled against the FDA’s approval of the drug — an approval that occurred 23 years ago.

Another example the Just Security blog co-founder notes:

A nationwide challenge to Biden administration efforts to combat social media disinformation was filed in Monroe, Louisiana — where it had a 100% chance of being assigned to Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty. And the state of Texas, which has filed 37 different lawsuits in Texas district courts challenging Biden administration policies*, has filed a majority of them in single-judge divisions — and none in Austin (where the Texas government is actually located) or Houston or Dallas or … you get the point.

Vladeck emphasizes, "The charge from McConnell, Cornyn and Tillis that the Judicial Conference is engaged in 'partisan' behavior rings more than a little hypocritical. The whole point of the proposal is to reduce the appearance of partisanship on the part of the federal courts."

READ MORE:[GOP represents 'most significant threat to basic constitutionalism since Civil War': historian

*Vladeck's full op-ed is available [at this link.]

===

8 23 BBB IRA

ro k says spent 130m$ lobbying to beat? pharma bro spike ~

save 50B/yr? ppl 3b$

https://www.alternet.org/biden-prices/ pharma PO'd

roll back super maj states?

wife and clarence scandals a factor? supermaj state --> tenn 3

an badash

it’s being called a “surprise decision,” a “landmark win,” and a “a major victory for the Voting Rights Act (VRA),” but some legal experts are warning that heralding the U.S. Supreme Court’s Thursday decision as anything except upholding the status quo is a mistake, and other experts suggest it means the Court’s earlier rulings wrongly threw control of the House of Representatives to Republicans. Some experts say a Democratic-majority House in 2024 is now more likely.

In short, in its 5-4 decision in Allen v. Milligan, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Alabama discriminated against Black voters, which make up a quarter of its population, by drawing congressional maps to exclude them.

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who writes about law and the courts, exclaimed, “WHOA!” as he explained: “The Supreme Court’s final decision of the day is a 5–4 ruling that AFFIRMS the Voting Rights Act’s protection against racial vote dilution! Roberts and Kavanaugh join the liberals. This is a HUGE surprise and a major voting rights victory.”

Democracy Docket, the website founded by Marc Elias, the voting rights attorney who won 63 of the 64 court cases Donald Trump and his allies filed to contest the 2020 presidential election, also served up a similar response on social media, calling it “a massive victory for voting rights.”

On its website, Democracy Docket calls it “an overwhelming win for Alabamians, specifically Black voters, whose voting power was found to be diluted under the current congressional map. Importantly, the conservative Supreme Court did not make the drastic decision to strike down Section 2 of the VRA, leaving an important tool in voting rights litigation in place.”

It adds the Supreme Court’s decision in Allen v. Milligan “leaves Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) intact and, in a landmark win for voters, struck down the state’s congressional map. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson and joined in part by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.”

Democracy Docket also notes the decision “will have major positive implications for outstanding redistricting lawsuits.”

Stern agrees, writing: “It’s a boon to Democrats’ chances of retaking the House in 2024. The Supreme Court had blocked multiple lower court rulings striking down congressional maps that diluted Black voting power. At least some of those rulings should now be implemented.”

Democracy Docket adds: “The Court’s decision in Allen likely means that litigation challenging Louisiana’s congressional map can move forward and paves the way for a favorable outcome for Louisiana voters. Louisiana’s situation directly mirrors Alabama’s. In both states, voting rights advocates argued that a second majority-Black congressional district is needed to ensure compliance with the VRA. The Supreme Court paused Louisiana’s litigation pending a decision in Allen.”

Dave Wasserman, U.S. House editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report calls the decision “a major surprise,” and says: “This could reverberate to LA, SC and/or GA, forcing creation of 2-4 new Black majority districts and netting Dems 2-4 seats” in the House.

Wasserman, known for his keen knowledge of congressional districts and iconic “I’ve seen enough” early and accurate predictions of House election races, offered this view of how the Court’s decision could impact current districts:

“The Alabama Republicans in most jeopardy owing to the SCOTUS ruling: Reps. Jerry Carl (R) #AL01, Barry Moore (R) #AL02 and Mike Rogers (R) #AL03. Moore could be squeezed the most in any map reconfigured to feature a second Black majority seat.”

University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck, author of a book on the Supreme Court, “The Shadow Docket,” offers up a stinging reminder of how the Court has damaged voting rights and helped Republicans in the process:

“If you assume that additional majority-minority districts in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, & 1–2 other states would’ve been safe Democratic seats, then today’s #SCOTUS ruling strongly suggests that the Court’s 2022 shadow docket stays [decisions/rulings] wrongly gave Republicans control of the House.”

Professor of law Anthony Michael Kreis, pointing to Vladeck’s remarks, adds: “there’s a House majority built on discriminatory lawlessness.”

Also taking note of Thursday’s SCOTUS ruling: House Democrats. Axios’ Andrew Solender reports House Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ office is “inviting Dem[ocratic] congressional staff to a Friday briefing on recent Supreme Court cases, including the Alabama congressional map case.”

Meanwhile, the well-known NYU professor of law, Melissa Murray, is stepping in to properly frame reactions to what she sees as the Court’s “weak sauce” decision on the Voting Rights Act.

“Some initial thoughts on Allen v. Milligan,” she writes on Twitter. “Media is trumpeting this as a ‘victory’ for the Voting Rights Act. And it is. And I don’t want to be a turd in the punchbowl… but this is pretty weak sauce from this Court.”

Professor Murray says, “this doesn’t ‘strengthen’ the VRA. It preserves the status quo. And the status quo is that this Court has done an A+ job of hobbling the VRA over the last 10 years.”

Murray offers up some quick historical background.

“In 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder, it eviscerated the preclearance formula. The preclearance regime required states with a history of voting discrimination to first ‘preclear’ any changes to their voting rules and regs with the DOJ or a three-judge federal court panel.”

“The Court invalidated the preclearance formula on the ground that progress had been made and minorities were voting and blah blah blah,” she notes. “This progress narrative prompted RBG [the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg] to note in dissent that throwing out the preclearance formula was like throwing out your umbrella in a rainstorm because you weren’t getting wet. She was right.”

Murray also refers to a number of other cases along the way that weakened voting rights.

“So, yes,” she concludes, “today’s decision is a victory that maintains the status quo for Section 2 of the VRA. But it is cold comfort when one considers the way this Court through its decisions has actively distorted the electoral landscape and made true representative government more elusive.”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie, calls Prof. Murray’s remarks, “Crucial zoomed-out context for today’s Voting Rights Act ruling. The 5-4 is a surprise, and it’s a victory—but after a long string of losses, today’s win amounts to…not losing YET MORE voting protections for people of color.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent, Elie Mystal, offers a bit of a more compact and down-to-earth response: “A way to understand what just happened with Roberts and Kav[anaugh] in the Voting Rights Case is that it’s not going to change much in terms of Alabama’s racist maps. This cost them little,” he says. “The *victory* is that these fools could have straight killed Section 2 of the VRA, but didn’t.”

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Fire and Flood: A People’s History of Climate Change, from 1979 to the Present

https://www.harvard.com/book/fire_and_flood/

Eugene Linden wrote his first story on climate change, for Time magazine, in 1988; it was just the beginning of his investigative work, exploring all ramifications of this impending disaster. Fire and Flood represents his definitive case for the prosecution as to how and why we have arrived at our current dire pass, closing with his argument that the same forces that have confused the public’s mind and slowed the policy response are poised to pivot with astonishing speed, as long-term risks have become present-day realities and the cliff’s edge is now within view.

Starting with the 1980s, Linden tells the story, decade by decade, by looking at four clocks that move at different speeds: the reality of climate change itself; the scientific consensus about it, which always lags reality; public opinion and political will, which lag further still; and, perhaps most important, business and finance. Reality marches on at its own pace, but the public will and even the science are downstream from the money, and Fire and Flood shows how devilishly effective moneyed climate-change deniers have been at slowing and even reversing the progress of our collective awakening. When a threat means certain but future disaster, but addressing it means losing present-tense profit, capitalism’s response has been sadly predictable.

Now, however, the seasons of fire and flood have crossed the threshold into plain view. Linden focuses on the insurance industryas one loud canary in the coal mine: fire and flood zones in Florida and California, among other regions, are now seeing what many call “climate redlining.” The whole system is teetering on the brink, and the odds of another housing collapse, for starters, are much higher than most people understand. There is a path back from the cliff, but we must pick up the pace. Fire and Flood shows us why, and how.

https://www.alternet.org/**2022/05/**massachusetts-court-exxon-trial-climate/

The Massachusetts high courton Tuesday rejected ExxonMobil's attempt to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the state, meaning the biggest oil giant in the U.S. must stand trial for allegations that it lied to the public about the climate emergency and the fossil fuel industry's role in driving it.

The lawsuit filed in 2019 by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey accuses Exxon of violating the state's consumer protection laws through a decades-long effort to conceal what it knew about the negative environmental impacts of burning fossil fuels.

In particular, the complaint says, Exxon deceived investors about the risks that global warming poses to its business and misled consumers by downplaying the dangerous effects of its products and overstating what the company is doing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As The Guardian reported, GUK"Exxon claimed the lawsuit was in breach of legislation against what are known asstrategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPS, used by wealthy individuals and corporations to silence critics."

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, however, ruled unanimously that the state's "anti-SLAPP" law is not applicable to government enforcement actions, affirming a lower court's decision to deny Exxon's special motion to dismiss the case.

"Once again, Exxon's attacks on my office and our case have been rejected by the courts," Healey said in a statement.

Tuesday's ruling, said the Massachusetts AG, "is a resounding victory in our work to stop Exxon from lying to investors and consumers in our state."

"Exxon's repeated attempts to stonewall our lawsuit have been baseless, and this effort was no different," added Healey. "We look forward to proceeding with our case and having our day in court to show how Exxon is breaking the law and to put an end to the deception once and for all."

During a congressional hearing in October, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods told lawmakers that the company's public statements on climate "are and have always been truthful" and that it has "long acknowledged the reality and risks of climate change" and "devoted significant resources to addressing those risks."

In reality, however, Exxon is one of several fossil fuel corporations that have spent years spreading disinformation to delay climate action and prolong coal, oil, and gas extraction even as the consequences of doing so grow increasingly deadly.

To take just one example, several U.S. government scientists working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were replaced or forced into retirement following an intervention by Exxon lobbyists in the early days of former President George W. Bush's administration, as detailed in Frontline's new three-part docuseries, "The Power of Big Oil."

The Massachusetts lawsuit states that Exxon undertook a "sophisticated, multi-million dollar campaign" to sow doubt about the links between fossil fuels and the climate crisis, which is "reminiscent of the tobacco industry's long denial campaign about the dangerous effects of cigarettes."

According to Healey's office, Exxon also engaged in greenwashing by marketing and selling its products as pollution-reducing and "falsely promoting itself as an environmentally responsible clean energy leader working to address climate change."

"Rather than honestly disclose and mitigate climate change risks," the lawsuit states, "ExxonMobil's misrepresentations about and failures to disclose those risks have delayed the needed transition to clean energy around the world and make these existential climate-driven threats to the global economy more likely to occur."

Since 2017, the AGs of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia as well as 20 city and county governments in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and Washington have filed lawsuits to hold oil, gas, and coal companies accountable for lying to the public about how they are fueling the planetary emergency.

yay win scalp

no lnx

DirecTV just dealt a major blow to right-wing viewers

Meaghan Ellis January 15, 2022

DirecTV has announced its decision not to renew its contract with the right-wing media operation, One American News Network (OANN). On Friday, January 14, the cable service provider released a statement to Bloomberg with details about the decision.

“We informed Herring Networks that, following a routine internal review, we do not plan to enter into a new contract when our current agreement expires,” DirecTV said in a statement to Bloomberg.

Angelo Carusone, president of the left-leaning non-profit Media Matters, also released a statement on Friday commending the cable provider's decision as she acknowledged how influential OAN has been for the spread of misinformation “DirecTV made the responsible decision to drop OAN. OAN is a cauldron of misinformation and extremism,” Carusone said in a statement.

The decision comes after Media Matters' relentless campaigning in hopes of getting cable television providers to drop the right-wing operation. Although they acknowledged DirecTV's effort to make better decisions for the new year, Carusone went on to explain how the damage has already been done.

Media Matters highlighted how miscommunication continued to run rampant for the last 12 months due to the cable provider's renewal of the contract last year. In short, the organization described the 2021 contract renewal as "a negligent mistake."

“DirecTV made a negligent mistake in 2021 when it renewed its contract with OAN even after OAN spent weeks attacking the election and stoking the embers that helped fuel the Jan. 6 insurrection. They gave OAN a full year to undermine our democracy — and our country suffered for it.”

She added, DirecTV has been “functionally propping up OAN for years. Without DirecTV, OAN would certainly not exist in its current form, and possibly not at all."

Following the heightened controversy surrounding the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election, OAN emerged as an epicenter for misinformation often echoing election falsehoods and conspiracy theories promoted by former President Donald Trump and his allies.

Judge rules that Dakota Access Pipeline must be shut down and emptied Matthew Rozsa / Salonan 720

620 guk

We are seeing the end of coal’ / Renewables surpass coal in US energy generation for first time in 130 years
‘We are seeing the end of coal,’ says analyst as energy source with biggest impact on climate crisis falls for sixth year in a row

5/20

desmog

Colorado is moving ahead with a plan to get nearly 1 million electric vehicles (EV) on its roads by 2030 and, for the first time, has adopted a long-term goal of transitioning to 100 percent electric and zero-emission vehicles.

dn 220 also XR win?

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/3/2/headlines/climate_activists_win_landmark_victory_in_oregon_after_presenting_necessity_defense

In a victory for climate activists, a Portland, Oregon, jury refused to convict five Extinction Rebellion members for blocking railroad tracks used to transport oil by Zenith Energy Corporation and other oil companies. The activists were acquitted after presenting anecessity defense. Valve turner Ken Ward — one of the “Zenith 5” — said of the landmark victory, “When citizens are told the truth about the climate crisis — which is the first of Extinction Rebellion’s demands — they take appropriate and responsible action, as our jury did, and we thank them.”

In other environmental activism news, police arrested members of Extinction Rebellion NYC as they blocked construction of a National Grid fracked gas pipeline in Brooklyn.

TOPICS:

hope/ win

https://www.alternet.org/2020/02/this-gruesome-logic-is-profoundly-disturbing-judge-reverses-convictions-of-border-humanitarians/

no lnx

It’s darkest before the dawn: Social scientists say our time of crisis holds hope for change, renewal and rebirth

Image via / White House.

Written by Paul Rosenberg / Salon December 29, 2019

These are tough times for independent journalism. If you value Salon’s original reporting and commentary, we urge you to support it — by supporting our writers directly. Right here, right now, you can make a financial contribution to help make Paul Rosenberg’s work possible. All donations go directly to writers.

“Resistance to Trump/ism is an effort to reclaim and reaffirm our higher values from those who are unable and/or unwilling to recognize and respect them.”

— Elizabeth Mika

“In a dark time, the eye begins to see”

— Theodore Roethke

We live in a dark time. In “September 1, 1939,” his poem on the outbreak of World War II, W.H. Auden called the 1930s a “low dishonest decade,” and the same could well be said of the 2010s. As that decade reaches its end, the good news is that so many people around the country and around the world are not just cursing the darkness, but lighting candles.

We can see this clearly with Greta Thunberg and the worldwide climate strike movement she has ignited. We can see it with the Parkland students who turned devastating tragedy into a watershed change in the gun safety debate, and helped inspire Thunberg as well. We can see it in the #MeToo movement — “It’s hopeful that the world is changing,” says founder Tarana Burke. We can see it in the massive democracy demonstrations around the world, from Hong Kong to Chile to Sudan and beyond. We can see it in the tens of thousands of Americans, disproportionately women, who have become political activists or political candidates since Donald Trump’s election in 2016. Candles alone aren’t enough, of course, as all those I just cited would insist. But they’re a start.

If there’s a reason for optimism in the New Year, and the decade that now begins, it’s in part because recognizing and understanding a problem are the first steps toward solving it. I’m no Pollyanna. We face enormous, even catastrophic problems. I don’t want to minimize them in any way. But I repeatedly interview people whose knowledge can help us make significant progress, can help us “make a way out of no way,” as John Lewis would say. Inspired by the quotation above from therapist Elizabeth Mika — from a tweet, believe it or not — I set out to get commentary on what this could mean.

I began by reaching out to Mika herself and to Ian Hughes, author of “Disordered Minds: How Dangerous Personalities Are Destroying Democracy,” both of whom share a view of tyrannies as “three-legged beasts” — the tyrant, his supporters and the society as a whole — a dynamic that Polish psychiatrist Andrzej Lobaczewski described as “pathocracy,” in which a pathological minority comes to dominate a nation. I knew that Hughes and Mike have both thought a great deal about how to fight the rise of such a regime. Since social dysfunction is necessary for pathocracy to take root, I wanted to bring in a wider range of people to address the broader social landscape as well, with a particular focus on the psychological dimension, because that seems so central to the challenges facing us.

“There is much to be hopeful about in these dark days, even though it may not seem so,” Mika told me. “That is because our difficult times also carry within them a promise of renewal, of a genuine change for the better.” Broadly speaking, the idea of renewal through adversity is anything but new — it’s one of the oldest human stories, encoded in winter holidays, in rites of passage, in countless myths, stories and songs. But as that long history suggests, it’s an idea that evolves and develops over time, incorporating new understanding and at times even undergoing renewal through adversity itself.

Mika employs a framework called “positive disintegration,” a theory of human personality development, created by another Polish psychiatrist, Kazimierz Dabrowski. Here is how she described it:

Positive disintegration is the dismantling of our old ways of being and our old character structure — more specifically our false self with its fear-based erroneous beliefs and low level values, and the harmful ways of living they produce — and creating a new personality through now conscious choices we make according to higher values once we see the truth about ourselves.

In our pre-disintegration — that is, pre-awakening — life, we believe that we were random, isolated beings whose existence is meaningless and without purpose beyond the satisfaction of our egocentric, lower level needs for power, money, status, hedonistic pleasure and admiration. Our lives revolve around these lower-level priorities, and our relationships with each other, along with our institutions, reflect that. It’s no wonder that our rates of anxiety, depression, addictions, relational breakdowns, violence and suicide skyrocket. Those are the stark results of our mistaken beliefs about who we are and the harmful lifestyle we have built on them.

Enter Trump/ism, as timely as ever a manifestation of our collective shadow, meant to confront us with the repressed truth about ourselves.

Rather than viewing it only as a calamity — which in so many respects it is — we could see it as an evolving act of grace. By unveiling the truth about ourselves, individually and collectively, as a nation, Trumpism has led us to the awakening to the existence and importance of higher values in our lives.

It would be premature to claim such a sweeping awakening has already happened. But there are signs, at least, of some stirring democratic renewal — as noted by Jennifer Mercieca, a historian of political rhetoric at Texas A&M and author of the forthcoming book, “Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump.”

She cited two encouraging trends: increased political engagement and increased interest in how political communication works. “These twin facts signal to me that Americans are both concerned about the health of their democracy and, in response, are performing their watchdog function,” Mercieca said. “These are good things.”

For his part, Hughes spoke more broadly, citing three causes for hope: First, “the courage and humanity of ordinary people in the face of the crassness and cruelty of the powerful,” second, the foresight of the architects of democracy, and third, the enormous Trump-era growth in understanding of how much the mental health of political leaders matters for society. These represent three crucial components of a healthy democracy: the people themselves, the protecting institutions and the growth of knowledge.

First, regarding the role of courage, Hughes discussed the recent Showtime documentary “The Kingmaker,” about the notorious regime headed by Imelda Marcos and her family in the Philippines. “It is a story of malignant narcissism empowered by obscene wealth,” he said, a story repeated all across the globe. “Narcissism empowered by wealth is the dominant narrative of our age.” But the film portrays a counter-narrative as well:

In the movie, one of the pro-democracy activists recounts how, after she had been tortured by Marcos’ security agents during the martial law years, she felt a sense of power and pride surge through her abused body. She felt she had been tested, more severely than most of us will ever be, and had passed the test. She had had the courage of spirit to stand up to the bullies, to face down their inhumanity, and to assert her own profound humanity in its place. Her testimony gives me hope that it will be upon her solidness of character, rather than on the sham vulgarity of today’s character-disordered leaders, that our future can be built.

Second, Hughes takes hope in the foresight of democracy’s architects, “who had the incredible sagacity to create institutions that would ensure that their hard-fought victories over the myopic violence of bullies-in-power would endure.” He cited a number of examples, currently being tested:

This applies to the founding fathers in the U.S., of course, but it also applies to the extraordinary architects of India’s secular democracy, whose legacy is currently being threatened, but will hold. It applies to the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose defenders are legion and span the planet. And it applies to the founders of the European Union, whose freedoms I enjoy and whose legacy will endure after Brexit, because their idea of a shared European identity has become embedded, particularly in the minds of young people, across the European continent.

Of course we cannot be sure that all these will hold, at least not by themselves. As Hughes notes, they may well hold because the institutions they created have legions of defenders, who in turn bring their courage and humanity to bear in standing up to the threats of would-be tyrants.

Third, Hughes said, “I take hope from the fact that our understanding of how profoundly the mental health of political leaders matters for society has been growing enormously under Trump.” For those of us who caught on early, this progress may seem maddeningly slow. But Hughes, who was just a young boy when the Irish “troubles” began in the 1960s, deserves to be heard as he spells out what he means:

Trump’s malignant narcissism is openly acknowledged, terms like “pathocracy” are entering the public arena, and an understanding is emerging of how social conditions enable toxic leaders to rise to power. We are becoming acutely aware, once again, that democracy is our primary defense against the pathology of toxic leaders. I think this emerging body of knowledge has enormous historical and global significance, precisely because the scourge of toxic leadership is itself global and reaches far back into history.

As a scientist my worldview is based on the hope that knowledge can change the world. As a teenager I had the hope that the recognition of our tiny place in the cosmos could move us from our profound delusion of being masters of the universe to a more profound and productive humility. Disordered leaders are incapable of such humility, of course, and they have built an international order based on their inhumanity. They are powerful and they are wealthy, but they are a minority. A more powerful international movement, based on the humanity of the majority, is already emerging that will defeat them.

Mercieca sees similarly hopeful signs. There’s a real threat of democratic erosion, she said, adding, “Within this crisis of democracy people are attempting to uphold democratic norms”:

They are acting as watchdogs over the government by engaging in the political process, actively consuming political news, protesting actions of the government, and planning to vote in the next election. Relatedly, people are very interested in or concerned about the way that our public sphere functions. This is crucial in this moment because one of the causes of our current age of catastrophe is our broken public sphere.

Indeed, as the media have faltered as watchdogs, Mercieca continued, people have taken up that role themselves:

I’m encouraged by the fact that people want to know more about how platforms and algorithms shape our experience of the world; about how rhetoric, propaganda and public relations can be abused to control reality; and about how traditional and non-traditional media profit motives and news values affect the possibility of democratic stability.

I’m also encouraged that people still have enough faith in the system to enact their watchdog function. The people still believe in American democracy; they still believe that their vote matters. They believe that they have the power to resist authoritarianism and defend democracy. That belief, shared by so many, is crucial. Without it democracy is already lost.

The issue of expertise and knowledge caught the attention of another communications expert, Dr. Dannagal Young, author of “Irony and Outrage: The Polarized Landscape of Rage, Fear, and Laughter in the United States” (Salon interview: Part 1/Part 2). “Truth still exists, and there are those working to study it, report on it, and illuminate it,” Young said. “We are still here. And we will be here, regardless of the economics of digital and social media that prioritize and reward spin and partisan mis- and disinformation over tedious truth”:

From historians on Twitter (Princeton’s Kevin Kruse is a must-follow, who issues a steady and tireless drumbeat of “Yes, the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln, but let’s talk about the party realignment of the 1960s rooted in race, shall we?”) to climate scientists desperate to translate evidence into legislative action — as industry-fueled elite discourse is beset on undermining their credibility and their science — researchers, scientists, sociologists, historians, and political scientists will be fighting all the way through 2020.

Chrissy Stroop, co-editor of the new anthology, “Empty the Pews: Stories of Leaving the Church,” was perhaps the most pessimistic respondent. She was deeply disturbed by the rise of a budding theocracy under Trump, and how few in the media take it seriously as a threat to democracy.

“It feels like all of America is turning into the kinds of authoritarian Christian schools I attended as a child and graduated from,” Stroop said. She is “deeply disappointed in America’s pundit class, which, as a whole, has failed to understand why the support of white evangelicals and other mostly white, right-wing Christians for an authoritarian strongman like Donald Trump was entirely predictable. In my view, only if we can get the gatekeepers of our major news outlets to take seriously the theocratic threat to democracy and human rights do we have a shot at saving American democracy.”

Yet she bristles with ideas about how to be effective. “Individually, some evangelicals and Trump supporters are reachable,” Stroop said, “so of course we should all be talking to those we have pre-existing relationships with, if it’s possible and safe to do so.” But mass outreach to white evangelicals, she believes, is misguided.

“Democratic efforts at ‘faith outreach’ and other projects directed at peeling off some of these voters are for the most part a waste of resources that would be better spent on get-out-the-vote initiatives,” Stroop continued. “My public work is engaged not toward reaching authoritarian evangelicals, but rather toward exposing them.” Hence the rationale behind “Empty the Pews,” which Stoop called “an intervention aimed … at elevating the voices of those of us who know toxic Christianity from the inside and are now trying to sound the alarm.”

He went on to cite three main bodies of evidence, the first of them relating to misperceived motivations:

People assume that the “other side” is driven by misanthropy, but all people are motivated more by “in-group love” than by “out-group hate.” Studies find that when people are faced with decisions in conflicts — how to vote or what to fund — we act primarily to protect those we trust, rather than to harm those we distrust.

Second, about shared values:

A survey by the organization More in Common finds that we share more values with the “other side” than we assume. Conservatives wrongly assume that liberals aren’t patriotic; in reality, four out of five liberals are proud to be American. Liberals wrongly assume that conservatives are willfully “colorblind”; in reality, four out of five conservatives acknowledge the existence of racism.

And third, perhaps most fundamentally, about shared moral foundations:

A dozen studies find that, despite divisive moral rhetoric (conservatives calling for “freedom” vs. liberals calling for “fairness”), everyone’s morality is grounded in a common concern: protecting people from harm.

Specifically, Gray said that his own team’s work establishes “that we all understand morality through the same lens”:

Morality is about safeguarding our children from harm. By recognizing that apparently different moral values are all grounded in the same universal motivation — loving our children — we can look beyond the partisan bickering and start the New Year with a bit more hope.

This helps explain, for example, the remarkably positive evaluations I reported on from “America in One Room.” That real-life microcosm of the American electorate didn’t produce civil war. Instead, “‘By the end of their time there, they referred to each other as friends,’ one facilitator, Amy Carl, said of her group of 14 people.”

As Gray concluded, “People clearly disagree about abortion, guns and parenting styles, but they all earnestly believe that their stance best helps to safeguard the vulnerable from suffering.”

The challenge, then, is how to overcome the misperceptions. It is no small task, to be sure, but it’s much easier than reconciling the irreconcilable. One plausible takeaway is that rival elites are much more divided than ordinary people are. This view is roughly congruent with the biggest-picture overview I’ve encountered in decades, the perspective of structural demographic theory (SDT), which explains the cyclic rise and fall of political instability in multiple civilizations around the globe. I reached out to University of Connecticut professor Peter Turchin, the biologist and social scientist who refined and generalized the original SDT model, to get his commentw on our present state.

“It is clear to most observers that our society is in deep crisis,” Turchin said. “The technical term in structural-demographic theory is a ‘revolutionary situation’: when the established elites are still holding the levers of power, but the social pressures for crisis have built up to the point where something has to give.”

This situation is not surprising, he said:

What I find remarkable is how precisely we today are following the trajectory into crisis that my colleagues and I saw in the historical societies we have studied (see my prediction of the impending crisis published in Nature in 2010). The explanation, probably, is that the three major mechanisms driving up social pressure for crisis — popular immiseration, intra-elite conflict and weakening of the state — work in mutually reinforcing ways. We see all those mechanisms operating in our current crisis.

Turchin felt greater optimism in the past, he told me, but now perceives a mixed and troubling picture:

Initially I thought that we collectively have a decent chance of avoiding this crisis, but now this hope is receding. A major reason for my pessimism is the resolute refusal by our ruling class, including both its liberal and conservative wings, to see the real causes of the crisis. Instead, they are consumed by internecine battles.

Thus, my position can be called half-optimistic, because we are acquiring the tools that could enable us to avoid the worst, and half-pessimistic, because I don’t see the willingness of our elites to use these tools.

Turchin’s half-optimism is a big deal, but his half-pessimism is deeply troubling, largely because of the urgent need for climate action. We really don’t have time for a civil war right now, not even a little one. The historical evidence he marshals is frightening. Is it possible that his forecast is too dark?

I believe it is, because of a potentially unique set of circumstances, starting with the historical trajectory of popular activism combined with the mobilization potential of social media and the potential to mobilize tens of millions of young people to action. Mass movements, as opposed to episodic uprisings, are historically recent phenomena, epitomized by the abolitionist movement, starting in the 18th century, and by the rise of Chartism and feminism in the 19th.

The speed with which the Climate Strike movement has spread, for instance, is unprecedented, as are the leadership roles now being seized by young people. If all of us — “progressive” or “conservative” — view morality through the lens of safeguarding our children from harm, how can we ignore them now? America’s elites have failed, that much is true. The world’s adults have failed. The existing structures have failed. If ever there was a time for “positive disintegration” on a mass scale, that time is now.

https://www.ecowatch.com/2019-climate-wins-2642492657.html

20 reasons hope

no lnx

20 Reasons Why 2019 Gave Us Climate Hope

The Climate Reality ProjectDec. 28, 2019 01:10PM ESTINSIGHTS + OPINION

There's no question that 2019 was a wakeup call on the climate crisis. Everything from devastating extreme weather events and seeing the planet's hottest month in recorded history to increasingly dire scientific reports coming out seemingly each week removed any doubt that this global emergency is rapidly escalating. We could hardly blame someone for feeling discouraged.

Here's what we must remember, though.

For all of the unfortunate events that happened this year, we also saw an equal (and growing) opposite reaction. People all around the world stepped up for the climate like never before.

What's more, technological advancements and plain economics are making the solutions to the crisis more feasible than ever.

So, here's the top reasons why 2019 left us with real climate hope!

Unprecedented Public Awareness and Action

Our biggest source of optimism this year? The incredible number of people around the world that stepped up for our climate. These highlights make us believe that one day we'll look back at 2019 as a historic turning point for the movement.

With an estimated 4 million attendees in over 163 countries, the Sept. 20 climate strike — the biggest climate demonstration in history — saw more people calling for climate action at once than ever before.

The September strike was far from a one-off. In the spring, hundreds of thousands of young people took to the streets and since then, ongoing protests have shown world leaders that the climate movement isn't going anywhere. Take this pre-COP 25 protest in Madrid, for example, where an estimated half a million protestors once again rallied for action.

This year saw the most Google searches for the term "climate change" ever. If that doesn't show peaking public concern on the issue, we don't know what does. In fact, the term was Googled so much that it even beat out searches for the year's most popular TV show: Game of Thrones.

Fortunately, it's not just awareness of the problem that reached new highs — it's also people's desire for action. Take public opinion in the U.S., for example. More than ever, Americans from all walks of life recognize that preserving a safe, sustainable climate simply can't be a partisan issue.

One of the best side effects of this shift in public opinion? Growing divestment from fossil fuels by individuals, universities and companies. Take the University of California schools system. This past September, UC administrators removed all fossil fuel investments from their $80 billion portfolio. With this move, the UC system joined more than a thousand institutions that have divested more than $11 trillion from fossil fuels since 2012. That's a seriously large chunk of change no longer supporting dirty energy.

It's not just organizations, though — countries around the world are also pulling their funding. In November, the European Union announced its plan to remove all fossil fuel subsidies after 2021 in what it calls the "most ambitious climate investment strategy of any public financial institution anywhere."

And speaking of dirty energy, 2019 left us with climate hope because of the increasing scrutiny the fossil fuel industry is finally getting for spending decades trying to stop climate action. We're seeing everything from lawsuits and growing media coverage to the growing field of attribution science — which can pin natural disasters on the emissions of specific companies — hold this industry accountable for knowingly perpetuating the climate crisis

Another encouraging trend? In 2019, celebrities used their far-reaching platforms to support climate action like never before. Everyone from musicians like Lizzo, Billie Eilish, Shawn Mendez, Jaden Smith and The 1975 (which even made a song with climate activist Greta Thunberg) to movie stars like Joaquin Phoenix, Chris Hemsworth, Jane Fonda and Reese Witherspoon, and global figures like Malala Yousafzai and Prince Harry, to name just a few, all joined the fight.

Influential voices amplifying the urgency of the climate crisis helps raise awareness and as a result, spurs more of the grassroots action we really need.

Game-Changing Media Coverage

Whether calling it a crisis, an emergency or a breakdown, this year news sources started covering climate change like never before.

Why now? Partly thanks to collective efforts by media groups to finally do this story justice. Take the Covering Climate Now global journalism initiative, for example. Co-founded by The Nation and Columbia Journalism Review, this project includes more than 350 outlets worldwide reaching a combined audience of over a billion people. Now that's the kind of climate coverage the world needs.

This December, climate activist Greta Thunberg was named Time magazine's person of the year — a distinction that highlights the importance of climate leadership today. What's more, earlier this year Greta was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize — perhaps the most widely recognized humanitarian award in the world. This gives us optimism not just because we're happy to see Greta receive the recognition she deserves, but because the nomination brought the world's attention to the urgent need for climate action.

In the U.S., the first-ever presidential climate town hall gave us a lot of hope. Why? Because it was the first time ever that presidential candidates had to address the climate crisis so seriously. Just four years ago during the 2016 election, candidates were hardly even asked about the topic.

Continued Growth of Renewables

Renewable energy — our most critical tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions — just keeps getting cheaper and more accessible. So much so that as of this year, according to Bloomberg NEF, "for two-thirds of the global population, it is already cheaper to get power by building a new wind or solar farm than a fossil-fuel power plant." How's that for some good news?

Globally, solar photovoltaic installations are expected to reach a new yearly high of 114.5 GW by the end of 2019 — a 17.5 percent increase compared to 2018. What's more, estimates predict that by 2024 the price of solar should drop by another 15 to 35 percent, spurring growth even further!

Wind energy also saw record-breaking growth this year. Specifically, by having a little under 2 GW installed from July 1 – Sept. 30, this was the highest third quarter on record for wind installations in the U.S. This push brought the country's total wind supply to more than 100 GW of power — enough to power "the equivalent of 32 million American homes." What's more, 2019 estimates predict that global wind power capacity is expected to grow by 60 percent over the next five years.

Technological and Economic Growth

Battery power, which is crucial for economically feasible electric vehicles (and renewable energies like solar and wind), made some serious strides this year. Largely thanks to increased production, battery prices for EVs went from costing over $1,100 per kilowatt-hour in 2010 to $156 per kilowatt-hour in 2019. By 2023, average prices are estimated to drop to close to $100/kWh — making EV's of all kinds even more affordable.

With that cost decrease in mind, it's hardly surprising that 2019 is expected to see a record 2.6 million EVs sold globally — about a 40 percent growth rate compared to 2018.

This year also saw automakers commit a whopping $225 billion to car electrification over the next five years.

The building energy retrofit market — a rapidly growing sector that shows great promise for emissions reductions — is another big reason for climate hope. In 2018, New York City was spending just $235 million on building improvements to save energy. However, a groundbreaking new law passed this year is expected to grow that market to nearly $25 billion over the next decade — a 13-fold increase over today's spending.

Experts estimate this measure will cut the city's emissions by 26%, roughly the equivalent of San Francisco's, and will create 141,000 new jobs in the New York City metro area by 2030!

This year the U.S. green economy employed more than 9.5 million people, who together generated a whopping $1.3 trillion in annual sales revenue —nearly 7 percent of annual US GDP. The importance of green jobs and green growth in the U.S. has never been clearer!

Local Wins Are Adding Up

A number of the world's countries with the highest emissions showed a lack of climate ambition this year. Now, that's certainly cause for concern and frustration, but fortunately this doesn't tell the full story.

According to the UN, as of this December "around 7,000 cities from 133 countries, 245 regions from 42 countries, and 6,000 companies with at least US$36 trillion in revenue have pledged to cut emissions themselves." National leadership might be faltering, but local leaders are taking up this fight like never before.

Natural solutions to the climate crisis saw an inspiring amount of global effort this year. Take reforestation in Ethiopia: This year, the country planted 350 million trees in what the government said was the largest one-day tree-planting effort in history. Ultimately, local wins like these are adding up to make a difference for the whole planet.

This year, a total of 4,527 new Climate Reality Leaders were trained in Atlanta, Brisbane, Minneapolis and Tokyo. That's 4,527 activists who now have Climate Reality training and tools to mobilize their communities for action in a decisive year.

Our new take on the annual 24 Hours of Reality program also saw great success this year. More than 1,500 Climate Reality Leaders gave more than 2,000 presentations on the climate crisis and how we solve it to audiences across 82 countries, on all seven continents, and in all 50 U.S. states.

Just this December, Climate Reality organizers mobilized the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Board to sign a resolution committing the school district to transition to 100 percent clean, renewable electricity by 2030, and all other energy uses, including boilers, HVAC and transportation, by 2040.

This Is What 2030 Could Look Like if We Win the War on Climate ... ›

'Climate Strike' Wins 'Word of the Year' by Collins Dictionary ... ›

great

In the most groundbreaking climate lawsuit decision to date, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands has ordered the Dutch government to cut its climate-heating greenhouse gas pollution by 20 percent, by the end of 2020.

The court ruled that the Dutch government’s duty to protect its citizens’ human rights make it responsible for taking action to slash carbon emissions, no matter how little that action means in terms of overall global carbon pollution. The case has been litigated for six years.

“David Boyd, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, said it was ‘the most important climate change court decision in the world so far,’” reports The Guardian, “‘confirming that human rights are jeopardised by the climate emergency and that wealthy nations are legally obligated to achieve rapid and substantial emission reductions.’”

hmmn maybe tectonic shift/tip pt:fla felon, recall kochs brief libtard flirt, partner w/ soros? kim k gets AA woman out; kamal fail:

https://theconversation.com/how-being-tough-on-crime-became-a-political-liability-128515

Kamala Harris recently dropped out of the presidential race after months of attacks from the left for her “tough-on-crime” record as San Francisco’s district attorney and as California’s attorney general.

A few years ago, the idea that being tough on crime would be a liability – not an asset – was unthinkable for both Democrats and Republicans.

Bill Clinton, during the 1992 presidential race, interrupted his campaign so he could return to Arkansas to witness the execution of a mentally disabled man. During Harris’ 2014 reelection campaign for attorney general, she actively sought – and won – the endorsements of more than 50 law enforcement groups en route to a landslide victory.

But something has changed in recent years. Harris’ failure to gain traction as a presidential candidate has coincided with a growing number of “progressive prosecutors.”

In the past, I would have scoffed at the notion of a progressive prosecutor. It would have seemed like a ridiculous oxymoron.

But in one of the most stunning shifts in American politics in recent memory, a wave of elected prosecutors have bucked a decadeslong tough-on-crime approach adopted by both major parties. These prosecutors are refusing to send low-level, non-violent offenders to prison, diverting defendants into treatment programs, working to eradicate the death penalty and reversing wrongful convictions.

GAME-CHANGER PRECEDENT?!

Jim Hightower: Can ‘powerless nobodies’ fight the corporate powers?

Written by Jim Hightower December 21, 2019

The many sparkling bays along the Texas coastline of the Gulf of Mexico have long provided both a working-class living and a valued lifestyle for generations of shrimpers, oysterers and other fishing families. People and seafood, however, are not the only creatures here, for such wildlife as alligators and snakes also call many of these interconnected waterways home. Yet, by necessity and experience, the hardy people of the water have figured out how to share the bays so all creatures can get along.

But in the 1980s, a strange and invasive new critter entered Lavaca Bay, near the town of Port Comfort. Far from getting along, this species proceeded over the years to devour whole harvests of seafood, along with the livelihoods of local Gulf communities. This marauder was not some monster from the deep but a massive, 45,000-acre factory looming over Lavaca Bay. It is the Formosa Plastics Corporation, founded by the richest man in Taiwan.

As its name implies, Formosa is not here for seafood. It is the world’s second largest fabricator of polyvinyl chloride,the tiny, highly toxic pebbles and powders used to make the gabillions of plastic bags, pipes, bottles, etc. that are choking the Earth. For decades, the Formosa plant has cavalierly been dumping trillions of these poisonous pebbles and tons of the polyvinyl powders into its wastewater — which end up in Lavaca Bay.

That poisonous content then spreads to other bays, nearby waterways, the Gulf itself … and into the shrimp, oysters, fish and other creatures living there. The result has been species vanishing from these waters, creating economic and social devastation for families and port communities that rely on nature’s bounty.

Wait, isn’t this against the law? Of course, but petrochemical behemoths like Formosa have corrupted the law, turning Texas lawmakers and environmental regulators into their puppets. When leaders won’t lead, The People must, and that’s exactly what’s happening in this case. A defiant, determined former fourth-generation shrimper named Diane Wilson, along with a scrappy environmental coalition on the Texas Gulf Coast, have just won the largest citizen environmental lawsuit in U.S. history, forcing Formosa to stop its gross contamination of the bay, the local economy and the law.

It’s good to have a happy-ending story for the holidays — one that’s not sugar-plum sappy but genuinely uplifting.

It “feels like justice,” said Wilson in early December when a federal district judge OK’d a $50 million pollution settlement against Formosa Plastics Corporation. Judge Kenneth Hoyt, a Ronald Reagan appointee, had previously ruled that the Taiwan plastics conglomerate was a “serial offender” whose violations of America’s Clean Water Act were “extensive, historical, and repetitive.” How the case got there is as important as his ruling.

Wilson, the indefatigable local shrimper, had been trying for some 30 years to get state and national officials to stop Formosa from dumping poisonous plastic chemicals into the Lavaca Bay ecosystem. The corporation’s deliberate contamination was destroying seasonal seafood harvests upon which she and thousands of Gulf Coast fishing families relied. She was ignored by those in power and then ridiculed and then demonized. Yet this lady of the sea wouldn’t quit.She kept speaking out, mounted hunger strikes and even tried to sink her own beloved shrimp boat in the bay as a public protest.

Nothing. But then, backed by a volunteer network of regional environmentalists and a savvy group of nonprofit legal service lawyers, Wilson filed the private citizens lawsuit in July 2017 that came to trial this spring in Judge Hoyt’s courtroom, finally producing an overdue measure of justice. The $50 million settlement doesn’t go to Wilson or the other plaintiffs but to projects that will revitalize local marine ecosystems and create a shrimping and oyster cooperative for local families. It also will pay for citizen-group monitoring of Formosa’s compliance with the judge’s orders for “zero discharge” of its plastic pollutants.

Even more significant than the money that the Formosa settlement provides,this victory sets a major legal precedent to advance other citizen lawsuits against polluters, requiring that the polluters (not taxpayers) pay for their messes. Who needs Santa Clause when “We the People” can deliver such democratic gifts to ourselves? For information on the details and impact of this remarkable people’s victory, go to the Texas RioGrande Legal Aid website.

Populist author, public speaker and radio commentator Jim Hightower writes “The Hightower Lowdown,” a monthly newsletter chronicling the ongoing fights by America’s ordinary people against rule by plutocratic elites. Sign up at HightowerLowdown.org.

Renewable Energy Takes a Quantum Leap in Nevada

:{BY: DAN GEARINO

A decision by Nevada regulators shows just how far the state has come in the transition to clean energy. That and more in the latest Clean Economy Weekly. Read More}:

Dick’s crossed the NRA — and they hit back hard. Now Dick’s has to deal with… the best sales ever Daily Kos

1119

https://yyy.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/15/european-investment-bank-to-phase-out-fossil-fuels-financing

guk

European Investment Bank has agreed to phase out its multibillion-euro financing for fossil fuels within the next two years to become the world’s first ‘“climate bank”.

The bank will end its financing of oil, gas, and coal projects after 2021, a policy that will make the EU’s lending arm the first multilateral lender to rule out financing for projects that contribute to the climate crisis.

The decision to stem the flow of capital into fossil fuel projects has been welcomed by green groups as an important step towards the EU’s aim to be carbon-neutral by 2050.

The EIB, the world’s largest multilateral financial institution, described its decision as a “quantum leap” in ambition. “Climate is the top issue on the political agenda of our time,” said the bank’s president, Werner Hoyer. “We will stop financing fossil fuels and launch the most ambitious climate investment strategy of any public financial institution anywhere.”...

https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/is-the-world-getting-worse-maybe-but-this-yale-sociologist-says-its-not-a-permanent-state-of-affairs/

no lnx

Is the world getting worse? Maybe, but this Yale sociologist says it’s not ‘a permanent state of affairs’

Written by Chauncey DeVega / Salon October 14, 2019

The mood of the world is dour.

Neoliberalism and globalization have promised so much but delivered little: Global wealth inequality has soared, with the top 1 percent of the world’s population now owning more than the bottom half. Older forms of colonial and imperial exploitation by the West against the global south (or “Third World) were never vanquished. Instead they evolved as “neocolonialism” to fit the 21st century.

Humankind is running out of time before the planet is made uninhabitable by global warming. Across the planet entire ecosystems are collapsing.

Democracy and the progress they represent are under siege around the world by the New Right and other authoritarian movements. The international human rights group Freedom Watch warns that “between 2005 and 2018, the share of Not Free countries rose to 26 percent, while the share of Free countries declined to 44 percent.”

In the United States, a recent Gallup poll shows that 66 percent of Americans believe their country is heading in the wrong direction. The 2018 Pew Global Attitudes Survey reveals high levels of concern and dissatisfaction with the health of democracy, the state of the economy, and free speech and other civil rights in countries around the world.

Technology such as artificial intelligence, the Internet, the algorithm, robots and other forms of automation are causing social, political and economic disruptions, which will not necessarily be for the betterment of the human condition long-term.

Rates of depression and anxiety are at crisis levels.

But what one sees is often a function of where one is standing.

Sociologist and physician Nicholas Christakis does not believe that matters are so dire. He is the Sol Goldman Family Professor of Social & Natural Science at Yale University. Christakis is also a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 2009, Time Magazine included him in its list of the 100 most influential people in the world. He is the author of numerous articles and books, including “Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives.”

In his new book, “Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society,” Christakis argues that while there are problems and challenges in the short to medium term, the overall trend for humanity is one that is positive and improving.

Have human evolution and natural selection actually influenced human beings to be good? Are human social relationships, and our ability to cooperate, evidence of how we are oriented towards collectively positive behavior? Are technologies such as the Internet and social media an aid or impediment to positive and healthy human social relationships? In our conversation, Christakis addresses these questions and more.

As usual, this conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

With the spread of right-wing authoritarianism around the world, Trump’s presidency and his assault on American democracy, environmental disaster, and global income and wealth inequality there is much to despair about in the world. When you survey this moment, what do you see?

I’m an optimist. My extended argument is that the arc of our evolution is long, but it bends towards goodness. I think both evolution and history, generally, are improving a lot of human beings. Now, this doesn’t mean that things have improved monotonically, meaning that at every moment life is getting better and better. There may be blips up and down, but generally speaking it bends towards goodness. A great amount of research and other scholarship shows that over the two to three hundred years and especially since the European Enlightenment, things have been getting better.

Science and philosophy led to a perfect storm worldwide whereby things are getting better. This is an objective fact. There’s less violence, people are living longer. Fewer wars. There is greater wealth and fewer people in poverty. There are fewer people starving. This is absolutely happening worldwide and it’s almost certainly due to some of the changes in technology, governance and philosophy.

But my argument is that we do not just have to rely on historical forces to conclude that the world is getting better. There is a more ancient and powerful set of forces at work. This is evolution. Over the last 300,000 years, natural selection has shaped us to be good and has equipped us with capacities for love, friendship, cooperation and teaching. These and other wonderful qualities must necessarily have outweighed the bad qualities.

Yes, it is the case that we are prone to violence, hatred, tribalism, selfishness and mendacity. But if in our ancestral situation, every time I came near you, you killed me or gave me useless or false information, I would be better off living a solitary life. So the benefits of a connected life outweighed the costs.

I’m not an idiot or a starry-eyed optimist. I know every world is not the best of all possible worlds and that every century is replete with horrors. We humans have venal, corrupt and violent leadership. In the United States we have incompetent leadership. There’s a rise in nationalism around the world right now. There is ascendant tribalism. I’m aware that at present we seem to be taking a step back in many ways. But I don’t believe this is a permanent state of affairs.

How do we reconcile your narrative with the empirical data which shows that several dozen people have more wealth than 50 percent of the people on the planet? Or the rise in loneliness and other examples of social alienation and atomization in Europe and the United States, for example?

That is all true. There is also religious conflict and political polarization. Many other indices are bad as well. We have the highest levels of economic inequality in the United States that have existed in 100 years. However, globally, economic inequality is falling. The bottom billion, the poorest people in the world, are much richer now than they have ever been. And one of the things that seems to be happening is a kind of global redistribution of wealth.

Some people believe, and I think it’s probably true, that the rising inequality in wealthy countries like the United States is related to declining worldwide inequality, roughly speaking. This is not exactly correct. But there has been a transfer of wealth from the poor in the United States to the poor abroad, from the rich in the United States as well, and from other developing countries.

You are describing a complicated picture. And it is further complicated by the other difficult conundrum, where a rising tide may lift all boats but it may lift them unequally. But the problem then becomes, do we not want the rising tide? This cleaves politically in terms of the left and the right very neatly.

The right wing argues, “Yes, it’s unfortunate that we have this awful inequality that we have now, equal to the time of the robber barons, but the poor are better off than they were 10 or 20 years ago.” The left says, “That’s ridiculous. There’s been no rise in real wages at the median, and we still care about inequality regardless of what the cause is.”

What do we want the world to look like? Yes, the poor can get cheap cell phones and other consumer goods but what does that reveal about their overall quality of life? And also what of neocolonialism and the vast transfers of wealth from poor countries to rich countries every year?

Earlier I was describing an empirical state of affairs regarding rising wealth worldwide, inequality and how many times these two things go together. It’s difficult to disentangle them. I was not making a normative statement. Some would say, “Well, there needs to be some kind of redistribution of wealth in this society, because that’s what we believe and we’re the majority,” or the other side might say, “No, that’s inefficient. We need to have a free economy, and if there’s some inequality, the market is still the most efficient mechanism for creating and distributing wealth.”

Those are political and ideological arguments. We can also go to the empirical data and say, “Well, what do we know about how much inequality is harmful for the commonwealth?” Then we can argue, “Well, that’s just too high. It saps the political solidarity in the country. We don’t want to live in a society with this much inequality, because it harms our ability to work together. It harms the health of everybody, including the rich.” Then a society and its elites can decide what to do about it.

How does biology inform our understanding of politics?

I’m interested in the forces that have shaped us over hundreds of thousands of years. Let’s not forget, we domesticated animals about 10,000 years ago. We invented cities about 5,000 to 8,000 years ago. We formed chiefdoms, kingdoms and then larger polities and various ways of distributing power after that. This is all quite recent in evolutionary terms. We built the social rules on our evolutionary foundation. For example, human beings have evolved to prefer what I call “mild hierarchy”. We do not like organizing our groups so that they’re perfectly egalitarian. In fact, there’s empirical evidence that type of arrangement is inefficient. There is more conflict and less information exchange in groups that are perfectly equal. We are better off having some inequality in power, for instance, or status.

Also, let’s not forget that some inequality is a product of the natural lottery. Some people are born stronger and smarter than others. That’s just the reality. Even in a society which had no socioeconomic inequality, no factors that tended to advantage some people over others, some people would still be better off just because they were born with better bodies.

Maybe, for example, in a forager population some people are taller and faster runners and therefore better able to hunt, which means they are going to have more stuff. Humans have evolved to like some mild hierarchy, which, as it turns out in a variety of experiments with primates and humans, is optimal for the performance of groups. But not too much hierarchy. We really resent it when there is autocratic power and we humans often band together to kill leaders that are asserting too much authority over us.

Now, this does not mean in every single instance this happens, but as a general matter over the course of our evolution, there is a strong set of data that support the belief that we “domesticated” ourselves. Weaker individuals within our primate ancestors would band together and literally kill older, more aggressive and strong individuals to reduce the prevalence of this type of assertive hierarchy in the gene pool.

When humans built our political systems we did this on top of all of these inborn qualities. For example: our propensity to cooperate. We like to be in groups. We like to work together. We like to develop comparative advantage and occupational specialization. One person forages for food and another person hunts, and then they trade with each other. This provides the basis for the way human beings developed political systems.

How does technology interact with the human brain to influence our interpersonal relationships?

If you could talk to my Greek grandmother — who was born just after the turn of the last century — who lived in a little village in southern Greece, and you asked her when she was a 10- or 12-year-old girl, just before the First World War, “How many friends do you have?” she would have said, “I had one or two best friends, and there were four or five of us girls who would hang out together.” And if you talk to my daughter who has an iPhone in her pocket, she would give you the same answer. It is not the technology which drives this phenomenon.

There’s something deep and fundamental about our social interactions, the way we make friends, which is unrelated to technology. The technology is at the service of these qualities, and every time a new technology has been invented, people have been worried that it will totally remake the social fabric. When the telephone was invented, there was a concern that it would corrode the culture of letter-writing.

There was a type of moral panic that this way of life was going to disappear, and that people, instead of visiting their neighbors face to face, would call them. People did start using the telephone. But we did not have a complete transformation in our social needs. We are fundamentally still the same people, but there are things that do change. For example, one of the things that online communication tools do is to expand the scope and the scale of our social interactions. It is much easier to track many more people using the internet and other new technologies.

These technologies also make it easier for human beings to realize our innate propensity to cooperate. My favorite example of this is Wikipedia, where you have thousands of strangers working together to maintain an encyclopedia that is available to all people. These new technologies also enhance our specificity. It was always possible to find a particular person if you wanted to — although it could have been very difficult. Now you can just Google them.

These online tools also impact what I call our “virtuality.” They give us the capacity to act like people we are not. So for example, to have avatars with discordant genders where there is a man with a female avatar or a woman with a male avatar. This was also possible in the past. People could cross-dress, for instance, or could pass as a different gender, but in the modern era with online tools this is much easier.

What do we know about the quality of those relationships? Are we defining friendship in different ways? For example, so-called millennials are hyper-connected online, but also report very high levels of loneliness and social isolation.

Our evolved psychology correctly reads these online relationships as being very fake and not real. Our evolved psychology also reads that situation as dangerous. You’re not among friends. You’re actually isolated, and we have evolved to fear isolation which was deadly in our ancestral environment. We know that we may have 1,000 Facebook friends. But deep down we know that these online “friends” are not your real friends, we have evolved to crave real friendships. That is why there are such rising levels of depression. Facebook is contributing to some of the very high levels of mental health problems we are seeing in this generation.

In your career you have not been afraid of big questions and big answers. How have you navigated that choice?

America’s universities are a hallmark of our civilization. I think only a rich and open society could have universities like we do. Our universities are the envy of the world over. They play a huge role in the production of wealth in our society and discovery.

Speaking for myself, I feel lucky that I live in a time and a place where I can be employed at a university in the task of generating and disseminating knowledge. I try very hard to discover new things as much as possible, to see things that others have not seen before, and I’ve had some limited success with that. It’s thrilling. And I’ve also taken my duty to inculcate in the next generation the knowledge that humans have accumulated — and also the norms that are central to our freedom to do that. It’s been a privilege and I’ve taken very seriously the opportunity to learn as much as I can.

Chauncey DeVega is a politics staff writer for Salon. His essays can also be found at Chaunceydevega.com. He also hosts a weekly podcast, The Chauncey DeVega Show. Chauncey can be followed on Twitter and Facebook.

https://news.littlesis.org/2019/08/14/private-prisons-now-face-87-4-financing-gap-as-banks-continue-to-flee-industry

As of August 2019, eight banks – JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, SunTrust, BNP Paribas, Fifth Third Bancorp, Barclays, and PNC– have publicly committed to ending their future financing relationships with the private prison industry, including CoreCivic and GEO Group. Together these eight banks represent an estimated $2.35 billion – or 87.4% – of the credit lines and term loans that are central to these companies’ operations.

Notably, all of the banks that provide credit and term loans to GEO Group have committed to end their future financing relationships with the industry. These commitments are the result of ongoing campaigns from #FamiliesBelongTogether and #BackersOfHate to end Wall Street’s financing and profiting off of the private prison industry.

This mass exodus of banks has had a cascading effect on the industry. Fitch Ratings, one of the three premier credit rating agencies, recently downgraded CoreCivic from BB+ to BB. This downgrade will make it more difficult for CoreCivic to secure the plentiful, cheap credit and loans they have accessed in the past.

Moreover, California’s $356 billion pension fund, CalPERS, is now considering divesting from the industry due to “egregious activities” at the border and the increased riskiness as banks continue to flee. Finally, CBS MoneyWatch reported that stock values for CoreCivic (CXW) and GEO Group (GEO) have been cut in half since April 2017.

Estimated Impact on CoreCivic and GEO Group’s Future Financing

As shown in the chart below, these eight banks provide an estimated combined $2.352 billion of GEO and CoreCivic’s financing, or 87.4% of the total financing currently available to these private prison companies. Given the eight banks’ commitments to provide no new financing, GEO Group and CoreCivic will potentially face a $2.352 billion shortfall when the current agreements expire.

https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/robert-reich-as-bad-as-it-looks-right-now-here-are-reasons-for-optimism/

sign of great things to come

A California-based firm has attracted $64 million in financing to expand its network of electric car charging stations, reports TechCrunch. Volta Charging, which is already running hundreds of charging stations in 10 states, will use the funding “to expand the company’s network of free, advertiser sponsored charging stations…to cities where it already has a presence, as well as moving into new markets.”

With transportation beginning to overtake the power sector as the industrial world’s leading source of climate-heating carbon pollution, automakers are investing billions in electric vehicles, as Reuters reported in April.

Building networks of charging stations that rival the distribution and number of gasoline and diesel fuel stations is key to quelling “range anxiety” among potential EV owners, and improving sales.

Thus many companies are diving into the charger network market, according to Consumer Reports, automaker VW among them: The firm “is spending $2 billion to build the infrastructure as part of its settlement with the US government over its diesel-emissions cheating scandal.”

In May, as Quartz reported, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (a business information service for paying clients, linked to the same company that produces Bloomberg News), forecast that EVs on the road would hit nearly 550 million globally by 2040, or just over 30 percent of passenger vehicle

https://www.ecowatch.com/california-condor-chick-born-2639303735.html

1000th chick

amazing how many sunshine states have citizen initiatives to get green solar power quashed by corps, that run crypto initiative to confuse/defeat them

great: sometimes one election is all it takes

So far, it’s a simple fact that Democrat-controlled states are way ahead of Republican-controlled in committing to carbon-free energy and getting it online as Bloomberg Environment reports.
Hitting renewable targets is challenging, no matter which way a state capitol leans. Indiana, which saw Democrats win both state houses and the governorship in 2018, “is far from meeting annual interim goals meant to keep it on track for 25% renewable electricity by 2025,” reports Midwest Energy News.
Still, a single transformational statewide election can quickly reverse years of bad policy. Take Maine, for instance.
Since January, when Democrat Janet Mills replaced Republican Paul LePage in the governor’s seat, it’s been “the most productive session for the environment and clean energy in my 23 years,” a green advocate tells The Christian Science Monitor, adding, “Not just 23 years. Ever.”
Two-termer LePage “slapped a moratorium on wind turbines and viewed renewable energy, as one critic put it, as ‘an existential threat’ to the state’…promoted fossil fuels, vetoed clean energy bills, tried to tear up environmental regulations, was alone among Atlantic coast governors to court offshore drilling, refused to issue voter-approved conservation bonds, and sought to tax vast protected forestland or open it to development,” the Monitor reports.
Since Mills took office in January, and with Democrats controlling both houses of the state legislature, Maine has enacted laws “to nearly eliminate carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, expand solar and offshore wind, promote electric vehicles, and distribute 100,000 heat pumps. It became the first state to ban foam food containers and the third to ban single-use plastic bags. It also prohibited offshore oil and gas drilling, stiffened river and lake water protections, threw out Mr. LePage’s appointees, and established a new office to help plan for climate change,” reports the Monitor.
Maine was one of 7 states where Democrats pried governor’s seats from Republicans in the 2018 election, out of 13 where Republicans were considered vulnerable, and lost none, as CNN reported last fall.Republicans picked up one seat, Alaska, that had been held by an independent.
“Before the election, just [just??] 42 percent of Americans were represented by Democratic governors,” CNN noted. In January, that rose to 53 percent.

guk no lnx 719

Device could bring both solar power and clean water to millions

Researchers say one invention could solve two problems for people lacking basic resources

Nicola Davis

@NicolaKSDavis

Tue 9 Jul 2019 16.00 BST Last modified on Wed 10 Jul 2019 17.04 BST

A woman fetches drinking water from a well in Zimbabwe

More than 780 million people worldwide lack basic access to safe drinking water. Photograph: Philimon Bulawayo/Reuters

A device that can produce electricity from sunlight while simultaneously purifying water has been produced by researchers, an invention they say could solve two problems in one stroke.

The researchers say the device is not only a source of green energy but also offers an alternative to current technologies for purifying water. These, they add, often consume large amounts of electricity and require infrastructure beyond the reach of many communities that lack basic access to safe drinking water – a situation thought to affect more than 780 million people worldwide.

“These people spend a collective 200m hours a day fetching water from distant sources,” said Prof Peng Wang, a co-author of the research from King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia.

With solar farms often located in arid regions, the device could provide clean water where it is needed most. What is more, the team say it could be used in a backyard or on an industrial scale.

“Having a significant amount of freshwater produced continuously on a daily basis [means] many challenging tasks can then be easily achievable,” said Wang. “The generated clean water can be used [for] cleaning solar panels to remove dust particles; it can be use to irrigate plants and crops, making desert agriculture possible.”

Writing in the journal Nature Communications, Wang and colleagues reveal how they constructed the device.

On the top is a horizontal commercial silicon solar cell and beneath this are several tiers through which saline, brackish or contaminated surface water is run. Waste heat from the solar cell warms the saline water passing immediately beneath it – the water evaporates, passes through a membrane and condenses to yield clean water, releasing heat in the process that warms the saline water in the tier below that – the process is then repeated for the next tier. The purified water flows out of the device and is collected.

The team found the device can be used to purify saltwater as well as seawater contaminated with heavy metals, with the water collected containing levels of lead, copper, sodium, calcium and magnesium all below the levels deemed safe for drinking water by the World Health Organization.

While the team outline various versions of the device, they reveal that under conditions on a par with a bright, cloudless day the energy efficiency of the solar cell was about 11% – a figure they say is on a par with what would be expected without the distillation section attached, and higher than previously reported by others working on such devices.

The device was also able to produce clean water from seawater at a rate they say is higher than conventional solar stills.

The device, while not the first to make use of solar distillation, has a particular advantage: by combining two types of device that typically each require a large land area, and mounting systems, the approach is relatively compact.

Wang said the device turned the traditional link between water and electricity on its head: conventionally, electricity is produced by heating water to produce steam that is then used to turn turbines. While he said the team was still working on scaling up the device and reducing costs, they are optimistic.

“It is our hope that we move quickly to push this technology towards its large-scale adoption,” he said.

Giant Floating Solar Farms Could Make Fuel and Help Solve the Climate Crisis, Says Study

Arizona Public Service Company

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Arizona_Public_Service_Company

icn -->

http://www.startribune.com/arizona-utility-finally-comes-clean-about-political-spending/509097912/

Facing what it saw as a threat to its monopoly from a surging rooftop solar industry, Arizona's largest utility secretly funneled millions of dollars to back favored candidates for the state commission regulating it.

Arizona Public Service Co. recently acknowledged it gave money to groups that spent $3.2 million in the 2014 Arizona Corporation Commission races. The disclosure in filings with the commission came after the utility refused for the past four years to confirm or deny its participation in the election despite broad suspicion that it did.

The spending raises questions about whether a regulated monopoly such as APS should be allowed to contribute money to political causes that could adversely affect customers, and whether it should be permitted to keep such spending secret.

"They are still taking ratepayer money and using it against the ratepayers to jack up their rates," said Tom Ryan, an attorney in metro Phoenix who has been a critic of some commission members.

The 2014 move by APS and its owner, Pinnacle West Capital Corp., was a break from a decades-long practice by the state's utilities of not meddling in political races involving their regulators. The utility spent on elections again in 2016 and 2018 but publicly disclosed it.

The shift led to years of negative press, along with an FBI investigation that continues to this day.

Pinnacle West and APS CEO Don Brandt was involved in deflecting news reports as the company funneled a combined $12.8 million to 15 political groups in 2014, including the $3.2 million that was spent in commission races.

The utility finally disclosed the spending late last month after a Democrat who took office in January joined with other commissioners to demand records.

It also provided details of $4.1 million in spending to influence its regulators' 2016 election and nearly$40 million to defeat a citizens' initiative last year that would have required that it get much more of its power from solar and other renewable sources.APS previously acknowledged those contributions.

"That was a policy issue with direct impact on our customers and our business and on Arizona," Jenna Rowell, the utility's director of external relations, said of the 2018 spending. "So we got involved in that early, we were up front about that. In addition to all of the required disclosures, we talked frequently and openly about why we were getting involved against that effort."

Brandt was getting updates from executives overseeing the company's political efforts in the 2014 and 2016 elections, according to documents provided to the commission.

Company officials haven't made Brandt available for interviews. Rowell pointed to a 2014 letter from the company's then-chief operating officer when asked why it dumped its long-held policy of not engaging in political races for its regulators.

"As you undoubtedly are aware, the political landscape is changing," now-retired COO Mark Schiavoni wrote to two commission candidates who inquired about the utility's 2014 political spending. "Because of the tactics a number of organizations are employing to misrepresent important regulatory issues, we may need to respond in the future to set the record straight on issues of importance to Arizona, our customers and our company."

One group that received funding from the utility also spent $704,000 in the 2014 secretary of state's race, including giving $437,000 to support Republican candidate Justin Pierce, the son of then-outgoing Commissioner Gary Pierce.

The FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office launched an investigation tied to the spending, and Pinnacle West was forced to confirm in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it has received grand jury subpoenas for information "pertaining to the 2014 statewide election races in Arizona for Secretary of State and for positions on the ACC (Arizona Corporation Commission)."

The FBI confirmed to The Associated Press that its investigation into political spending in certain 2014 statewide races remains ongoing, though it declined to provide details. The U.S. Attorney's Office declined to say whether a grand jury was still examining the 2014 spending.

Neither APS nor the FBI has disclosed which possible violations of law are being investigated.

Pinnacle West insists no ratepayer money was spent on its political efforts, but former Commissioner Bill Mundell said the claim was disingenuous, given that the company gets nearly all its money from utility customers.

The 2014 effort came as APS was faced with a growing rooftop solar industry and consumers' embrace of solar panels that could cut their power use — and the utility's profits. APS wanted commissioners to lower the amount it had to pay for power rooftop solar customers sent back to its utility grid. The commission ultimately did lower that payout for future solar installations.

Vernon Parker, who lost his 2014 commission race, said he drew APS' ire by going to a pro-solar gathering where he gathered campaign petition signatures.

"The bizarre thing is that I would have been fair," Parker said. "Any issue that would have been raised, I would have asked, 'What does this mean to our ratepayers?'"

Commissioner Andy Tobin, who was backed by the utility in his 2016 race even though he said he discouraged it, said APS should have been up front about its 2014 spending and explained its belief that the solar industry posed a threat to its business.

"That's what they should have done, and I don't know why they didn't," Tobin said.

419 icn

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/10042019/iowa-solar-fee-warren-buffett-midamerican-energy-who-gets-hurt-small-businesses

Entrepreneurs Built Iowa’s Solar Economy. A Utility’s Push for Solar Fees Could Shut Them Down.

BY: DAN GEARINO

Lawmakers are considering a new fee for rooftop solar at the urging of a utility owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.Meet the small business owners whose futures are at stake.

This story was co-published with The Weather Channel.

FAIRFIELD, Iowa — Walking between rows of solar panels in the largest project their company has ever done, the co-owners of Ideal Energy feel a mix of pride and unease. One giant task is almost done, and many more are just ahead.

"I couldn't have done it with anyone else," said Troy Van Beek, an entrepreneur and former Navy SEAL, about his wife and business partner, Amy Van Beek.

Over the past 10 years, this couple has been a leader in launching a solar industry in Iowa, showing how entrepreneurs can build a market almost from scratch.

Now, they and other small business owners are in a political fight for their future as they try to keep Iowa lawmakers from passing legislation that they fear could kill the state's still young rooftop solar industry.

Customers' utility-bill savings would cover the cost of adding solar. It's part of a national wave of utility-backed plans that would reduce the financial benefits of home solar, to the benefit of utilities. The leading supporter of the Iowa bill is MidAmerican Energy, a utility owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway.

The entire state of Iowa had less than 1 megawatt of solar installed in 2009 when the Van Beeks started Ideal Energy. Nearly all of the country's solar development was in the sunniest states or in states with substantial subsidies for rooftop solar, of which Iowa was neither. Today, Iowa is up to 96 megawatts, the majority of it installed on homes and businesses.

Ideal Energy is one of about a half-dozen Iowa solar installers that entered the market when it was nearly nonexistent and built it project by project.

The site of the couple's walk was a 1.1 megawatt solar array with battery storage, located in a field about a mile from their Fairfield office. In California and other leading solar states, 1.1 megawatts is nothing special. Here it's huge.

It is a showpiece for everything Ideal Energy can do, and a leap from the small rooftop solar systems they installed when the company consisted of Amy doing all the marketing and Troy doing all the installations. Now with about 30 employees, the company still installs systems on houses, although the co-owner is much less likely to be climbing on the roof and turning screws.

Iowa only ranks 39th in installed solar power. (Wind energy is king here, with more than 8,400 megawatts.) The state's solar market has been so small that most of the large national players don't bother with it.

To kickstart solar in Iowa, local businesses needed to take risks—and that's what Troy and Amy did.

Building a Solar Industry Almost from Scratch

In the mid-2000s, Iowa's solar industry was "microscopic," consisting of a few solo entrepreneurs and some electrical contractors who occasionally did solar as a sideline, said Barry Shear, owner of Eagle Point Solar in Dubuque, who started his company in 2010 and is a founding board member of the Iowa Solar Energy Trade Association.

There were projects here and there, but nothing resembling the solar economy that has started growing there recently. It now tops 800 employees at 64 businesses, most of which are installers or developers, according to the national Solar Energy Industries Association.

"If you're in a place like Iowa, it's probably not going to make sense for an entrepreneur to say, 'I'm going to go all-in on solar,'" said Eric O'Shaughnessy, a researcher at the National Renewable Energy Lab.

He has studied the role of entrepreneurs in the solar economy and found that the pioneers were often very small businesses that did not stick around. But some of those early businesses lasted long enough to build a base of customers and help to popularize solar in their regions.

"There are people who took risks way back when, and a lot of this is because of them," O'Shaughnessy said, referring to the solar boom that has taken hold in many parts of the country.

Another other key element has been policy support, such as tax credits, said Matt Edwards, co-owner of CB Solar of Des Moines, a solar installation company that launched in 2013.

"Without that jumpstart, maybe there isn't an industry," he said.

The key federal policy has been the investment tax credit, which currently allows solar system owners to deduct 30 percent of the cost of a project. This credit will soon phase out, dropping in value in 2020 and 2021 and then going away. In addition, Iowa has a 15 percent solar tax credit, which is set to step down on the same timetable as the federal credit.

Iowa's solar companies have been preparing for the loss of the tax credits, which they think they can endure because the prices of solar components continue to fall. But the addition of solar fees, which could take effect this year if the measure passes, would be too much, solar advocates say.

"Margins are razor thin everywhere, so anything you do that affects the economics is important, and utilities know that," said Becky Stanfield, Midwest director for Vote Solar. "They are trying to design these charges to be just enough to suppress the solar market."

The Utilities' Argument

The leading Iowa solar companies work together on policy issues, but they are up against some heavy hitters. MidAmerican is leading the charge for the solar fee legislation, joined by statewide business groups.

MidAmerican says the proposal means solar customers would pay "their share" of the costs to maintain the electricity grid. Almost all solar customers are connected to the grid, allowing them to buy electricity when they need it and sell excess power to the grid for a credit. Solar advocates point out that rooftop solar helps decrease demand for power from the grid, avoiding the cost of building new power plants and reducing the burning of fossil fuels that contributes to climate change.

Versions of the bill have passed in the Iowa Senate and a House committee. The next step is a floor vote in the House, which could happen any day. The fact that a vote hasn't yet happened is a sign that the House's Republican majority doesn't yet have the votes to pass it. People on both sides of the issue say this is a close one.

The bill does not specify an amount for the fee, but MidAmerican says a typical household with rooftop solar should pay an additional $328 per year to cover grid services. This figure, which is about $27 per month, is likely what MidAmerican would seek to charge if the bill passed. And that is enough to deter future customers, Troy believes.

The Solar Entrepreneurs Fighting for a Future

Troy Van Beek grew up in rural Wisconsin and became a Navy SEAL, the special operations force that does some of the military's most dangerous work. From there, he moved to private security, eventually working with two partners to start a security firm.

Everything changed for him on a hot day in Nairobi. He was sitting behind the wheel of an SUV that was stopped in traffic. A man walked up to the vehicle's open window and began to speak.

"He had a bottle in his hand and he said he was going to break the bottle on my face if I didn't give him 50 shillings," the equivalent of less than one U.S. dollar, Troy said. "I looked up at his face and he had the most bloodshot eyes I've ever seen. "I was like, 'Ok, you win,' and I paid him off and I slipped out of there."

The encounter weighed on him. At the root of it, he thought, was a grossly unfair distribution of resources between the wealthy world and everywhere else. He began to think about how energy policy played a role in this, and saw value in the sustainability of renewable energy.

"It transformed me," he said.

He looked online for college programs that specialize in sustainability and found one at the Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield.

Amy was born in Fairfield. Her parents had moved there in the late 1970s as part of the influx of people who built a community based on the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the Indian guru who popularized transcendental meditation.

The meditation community, many of whom had come from the coasts, had an uneasy relationship with the people who had been in Fairfield for generations. "It was totally weird," she said. "It was like we were living in a fishbowl here. It didn't mix well with traditional Midwest culture."

She left Fairfield to go to art school, but soon returned and finished a studio art degree at Maharishi University. She started working at her family's construction business, which is where she found her affinity for shepherding big projects.

She had her first conversation with Troy at a dinner party in 2006, and they married in 2012.

Finding Solar Demand in an Untested Market

Fairfield, population 10,400, has elements of a typical Iowa county seat city, from the Hy-Vee grocery store to the grain elevator. But they are intermingled with the architecture and philosophy of the several thousand residents who have made meditation a central part of their lives.

In 2008, city leaders in Fairfield convened a panel to draft a plan for how to encourage businesses and households to better embrace renewable energy and sustainable living. Troy became a member of the committee.

He got to know the people in Fairfield's business community and learned what they needed in terms of managing their energy use and costs. He found one big obstacle: There was no local company that could provide the energy services that the businesses wanted.

In response to this demand, he and Amy started Ideal Energy there in 2009, working out of their house. They started as a consulting firm, working with clients on ways to reduce energy use. They did not intend to specialize in solar installations, but that turned out to be what many of their early clients wanted.

Southeast Iowa had a steady supply of solar customers, including households, retailers, small factories and farms.

Ideal Energy and Iowa's other solar pioneers took risks in entering an untested market, but they also had some lucky breaks. A big one came from the utility Alliant Energy, which had a solar rebate in the early 2010s that, when added with federal and state tax incentives, made it so that the energy savings from projects would cover costs within a year or two.

The Alliant rebates contributed to what was, by Iowa standards, a solar boom from 2012 to 2014. The state had its first year with more than a megawatt of new solar in 2012, with 1.08, which jumped to 3.94 in 2013, followed by 15.19 in 2014, before Alliant began phasing out the program because the demand was more than the company had budgeted for.

Alliant, the state's second-largest utility after MidAmerican, has not taken a position on the legislative proposal.

'We Want to Survive This Process'

Ideal Energy's most significant customer turned out to be just up the road from its offices. The 1.1 megawatt solar and storage project, about three times larger than any other the company has done, is in a farm field across the street from Maharishi University.

Completed in mid-December, the project's solar panels are mounted on racks that tilt throughout the day to follow the sun, increasing their power output. Together, the solar array and batteries will provide enough electricity to meet more than one-third of the campus' needs.

Amy says other large projects are being finalized, though she can't discuss the details quite yet.

At the same time, the legislative proposal "threatens our business and the people we employ," Troy wrote in an op-ed in an Iowa newspaper.

If the bill doesn't pass, the Van Beeks will be able to concentrate again on managing their growth. At about 30 employees, they are still small enough that they can personally oversee every project, and they don't want to lose that.

They can see that the solar market, a market they played a big role in building, is gaining momentum. They want Ideal Energy to make it through growth with its values intact.

"We want to grow at a rate that we can do this sustainably," Troy said. "We want to survive this process."

PUBLISHED UNDER:

CLEAN ENERGY

NERN - MIDWEST

SOLAR ENERGY

Gary Cohn, the former head of President Donald Trump’s National Economic Council who left after losing a battle over steel tariffs, said he tried to sell Trump on solar jobs -- and seemingly failed as the administration eventually imposed tariffs on the industry.

Cohn said in an interview with the Freakonomics podcast that he “vividly” remembers having a conversation with the president comparing the less than 50,000 coal-mining jobs with more than 350,000 solar-panel installers, according to a transcript released late Wednesday.

“And by the way, 10 years ago, we had no solar-panels installers,” Cohn said on the podcast. “It’s an industry that’s going to continue to grow. And we have to recognize where this country is going, not where this country has been.”

Trump ended up slapping tariffs on solar equipment imported into the U.S. The president understood, Cohn said, that “in West Virginia, and southern Ohio and Pennsylvania, you better go talk about coal.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Eckhouse in New York at beckhouse@bloomberg.net

24-Hour Solar Energy: Molten Salt Makes It Possible, and Prices Are Falling Fast

In the empty Nevada desert, halfway between Reno and Las Vegas, a field of shimmering mirrors concentrates the sunlight onto a tower with a light so bright you can't look directly at it. Kevin Smith sees this as the future of energy. Using molten salt, his company is trying to prove that concentrated solar power can make the sun an affordable clean energy source day and night.

READ THE STORY

California Becomes First State to Require Solar on New Homes

Sunny California is officially the first state in the nation to require solar panels on most new homes.

The California Building Standards Commission unanimously confirmed the standards during a vote on Wednesday, The Mercury News reported.

Keep reading...

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15102018/rooftop-solar-net-metering-policy-utility-charges-michigan-dte-nevada-alec

national fight that could slow the spread of rooftop solar has landed in Michigan, where utility regulators are weighing a proposal that would cost consumers more to produce their own power.

The outcome could have widespread significance for net-metering, a popular policy in many states that has spurred dramatic growth in rooftop solar installations. Clean energy advocates say it is the most worrying attempt to undermine rooftop solar that they've seen since a 2015 Nevada policy that nearly killed the market there and later was undone after massive blowback.

"It is very clear that DTE is trying to put a dagger in the heart of rooftop solar in Michigan," said Becky Stanfield, a senior regional director for Vote Solar.

The underlying arguments being spread by utility groups and their supporters are "already contagious" for other states, she said, and will become more so if this is adopted in Michigan, a state that is controlled by Republicans but perceived as more politically moderate.

Right now, DTE Energy customers who generate their own electricity from solar panels are paid the full retail price for any excess power that they produce and sell to the grid.The utility wants state regulators to cut that by about 75 percent for future rooftop solar systems. It also wants to create a new monthly charge based on the size of a household's rooftop solar system.

DTE, Michigan's largest utility, says the plan would end what amounts to a subsidy for rooftop solar.

That's a familiar argument. The Edison Electric Institute, a trade group for electricity utilities, is supporting DTE's proposal using a policy framework that echoes one put forward by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a national group that advances corporate interests through state government actions.

Putting the Brakes on Solar Growth?

The change to net-metering was teed up by a 2016 law, supported by utilities and signed by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, that increased the state's renewable energy requirements for utilities but allowed lower payments for net-metering customers.

The Public Service Commission followed with an order this year that requires utilities to set new rates for paying rooftop solar customers that are lower than the full retail price, but it allowed flexibility in how much lower. Stanfield saysDTE went to the extreme.

The company's proposal would change how rooftop solar owners are compensated for electricity they sell to the grid. Instead of paying them the same retail rate that the utility charges customers, it would pay them a much lower wholesale rate. Last year, that averaged about 75 percent less than DTE's full retail rate.

The utility is also proposing a new $2.31 per-kilowatt monthly charge for rooftop solar customers, something the Public Service Commission's staff had recommended against.

The commission—whose three members were all appointed by Snyder—will decide the case in a process that begins in earnest in a few weeks when parties file their initial testimony, with a ruling likely next spring.

DTE declined to say what the impact of its proposal would be for solar panel owners, but Vote Solar estimates that the proposed changes would mean a homeowner with a 5 kilowatt system loses about $498 per year.

The new rates would apply to new installations, while customers who already have rooftop solar would be able to keep their current rates for 10 years.

In a rapidly growing market, those new customers would quickly outnumber the existing ones, but DTE's plan would put the brakes on that growth, said Joseph Nagle, co-owner of Strawberry Solar, a solar installer in Detroit.

"They're definitely going to make it harder to sell," he said.

Nevada saw the results of that kind of change after it slashed its net-metering rates in 2015. Solar growth came to a near-standstill, and major solar installers, including Sunrun and SolarCity, announced they were stopping local operations, closing offices and cutting hundreds of jobs. The backlash forced the state to reverse course in 2017, and Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval signed a bill restoring net-metering payments.

ALEC's Shadow in the DTE Proposal

DTE spokesman Peter Ternes says the Detroit-based company "is overwhelmingly in favor of renewable energy." In fact, it has plans to expand its solar and wind power. It and most other utilities support renewable energy development in the form of large solar farms and wind farms that generate electricity they can sell—as opposed to consumers generating their own power.

In its push to lower the rates it has to pay rooftop solar owners who sell power to the grid, the company is using arguments similar to those that are being promoted across the country by ALEC, a group that uses state legislators to advance corporate interests.

ALEC's talking points on net-metering describe rooftop solar customers as not paying their share to maintain the grid. That was a key argument in a presentation that the Edison Electric Institute gave to the Michigan Public Service Commission last spring.

"It's not a coincidence that several of these proposals have come out with similar structures," said Kevin Lucas, director of rate design for the Solar Energy Industries Association. The arguments don't mention other studies have found that the flow of rooftop solar power can help states both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid costly new infrastructure investments that customers would end up paying for.

In states that already have substantial development of rooftop solar, this would not be politically tenable, Lucas said. But it can happen in Michigan, where rooftop solar is gaining momentum. DTE currently has about 1,700 home and business customers with rooftop solar in Michigan, less than 1 percent of its 2.2 million customers.

"Much of the case here is trying to stop this industry before it gets a foothold," Lucas said.

More States' Solar Policies Targeted

Versions of this debate are happening in many states, said David Littell, principal at the Regulatory Assistance Project, a nonprofit that advises utility regulators.

Most utility commissions want to encourage the development of renewable energy, he said, but they also want to make sure that utility companies are on solid financial footing.

About half of U.S. states have net metering policies that pay the full retail rate for excess power, although this is limited in some states by caps or other restrictions, according to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency. Other states have net metering, but with lower compensation.

Kansas, which is allowing utilities to chargehigher fees to rooftop solar owners, is one state that recently changed rates for rooftop solar. South Carolina and New Hampshire are among states with caps on eligibility for net-metering.

What the discussion lacks, Littell said, is a model policy that both utility groups and clean energy advocates will concede is fair.

PUBLISHED UNDER:

CLEAN ENERGY

REGULATION

SOLAR ENERGY

anomaly?

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28092018/aep-solar-energy-appalachia-ohio-coal-just-transition-utility-regulatory-battle

Appalachian Ohio, a region hurt by the decline of coal, may become home to one of the largest solar projects east of the Rockies.

American Electric Power submitted a plan Thursday evening to work with two developers to build 400 megawatts of solar in Highland County, Ohio. It would more than triple the state's current solar capacity and be a big step forward for solar energy in a part of the country where renewable energy has been slow to develop.

AEP says the plan would save consumers $218 million over 20 years because solar power from the project would be less expensive than conventional energy sources.

"This is something that Appalachia needs," said Dan Sawmiller, Ohio energy policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The jobs of this renewable energy economy are going to go somewhere and I think it's important that they go where they're needed."

But the project's structure would break the established regulatory mold in Ohio, a state where utilities don't own power plants and generators compete with each other to supply the cheapest power to the grid.

The savings and the jobs promised are a turnaround from the arguments state officials listened to when they rejected clean energy proposals in recent years. If the new plan is approved by Ohio regulators, it could serve as a template for other new projects in Ohio and in other states.

'Just Transition' in Appalachia

The decision to put the project in Appalachian Ohio, which covers the southern and eastern parts of the state, is part of an attempt to bring economic development to an economically depressed region.

"It's a really hopeful move," said John Quigley, director of the Center for Environment, Energy and Economy at Harrisburg University, who has written about so-called "just transition" for poor communities affected by the shift from fossil fuels to the new green economy.

"It's an eye-opener for policymakers that there's a huge economic development opportunity for solar, especially in communities negatively affected by the energy transition," he said.

Another recent example is Xcel Energy's plan to close its coal-fired power plant in Pueblo, Colorado, and build renewable energy projects there.

Highland County, Ohio, where AEP and its solar developers chose to build, has an unemployment rate higher than the state average, and nearby counties have some of the highest unemployment rates in the state. AEP says its plan would bring 3,900 new jobs, most of them in construction, plus 113 full-time jobs in solar manufacturing. Details on the manufacturing jobs were not immediately disclosed.

The plan is part of a boom in solar development that is happening across the country. Some other big solar projects have also been announced in the region but not yet built, including a 150 megawatt solar farm being developed by Invenergy in Hardin County, Ohio. The AEP project would go into service in 2021 if approved.

Challenging Ohio's Regulatory System

This project is unusual for Ohio because a utility, AEP Ohio, would benefit financially from an electricity generation project. That would be normal in much of the country, but Ohio has a separation between utility companies and the owners of power plants.

AEP's proposal is seeking to make an exception to this rule by having solar developers operate the solar farms on behalf of AEP Ohio. The costs would be passed on to the utility's consumers, which AEP says is justified because of benefits to the environment and the local economy.

Opponents likely will argue that this violates Ohio's open market for electricity generation. In the market, owners of power plants compete to offer the lowest prices and utility companies do not own power plants. More than a dozen states similarly have open markets for electricity generation, including much of New England and the Great Lakes region, and Texas, among others.

Ned Hill, an economist at Ohio State University, says that having a utility pay for certain power plants could stifle investment in competing projects—including other renewable energy projects. He has opposed previous proposals by energy companies and utilities to subsidize coal and nuclear plants, and says this plan is bad for some of the same reasons.

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio will decide whether to approve the plan in a process that will unfold over the next few months and that likely will focus on the types of questions Hill is raising.

Sawmiller, from NRDC, said he can understand why there are concerns about what this project means for the competitive market, but he thinks the market is structured in a way that has held back renewable energy development.

"If you rely exclusively on the market you lose some of the innovative economic development that's laid out in this filing," he said.

PUBLISHED UNDER:

CLEAN ENERGY

COAL

NERN - MIDWEST

Facebook Joins 100% Renewable Energy Revolution

Facebook announced Tuesday it will slash greenhouse gas emissions by 75 percent and transition global operations to 100 percent renewable energy by the end of 2020 in efforts to "help fight climate change."

Similarly, Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted over the weekend that his company's enormous Gigafactory in Sparks, Nevada will run entirely on Tesla Solar by the end of 2019.

===

Solar's Hitting a Cap in South Carolina, and Jobs Are at Stake by the Thousands

BY: JAMES BRUGGERS

Solar energy's popularity jumped with net metering. Now, utilities plan to cap the program 3 years earlier than expected, and it’s an issue in the governor’s race.

https://insideclimatenews.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7c733794100bcc7e083a163f0&id=3ff154ff26&e=06876ede6b

American solar market may be about to get boost from an unexpected source: Energy analysts say the Chinese government's decision to dramatically cut its solar power subsidies will create a glut of solar panels and send their prices tumbling worldwide.

It comes at a crucial time for American solar installers. Falling prices could take the sting out of President Trump's solar panel tariffs, which have raised costs in the United States and led to billions of dollars in cancelled and frozen U.S. investments.

"It's changing the tone from negative to positive for the U.S.," said Xiaoting Wang, an analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).

...

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14062018/georgia-solar-power-renewable-utility-scale-clean-energy-investments-2018-election

Over the past five years, Georgia has become one of the nation's leading states for solar power, but it didn't get there in the usual way.

It doesn't offer tax credits, and the legislature has never created a state renewable portfolio standard requiring utilities to sell renewable energy. There is no net-metering law to let solar homes sell excess energy back to the grid at retail prices.

Instead, an early Trump supporter who leads the state's Public Service Commission has been pushing Georgia Power, the state's largest utility, to invest in clean energy by ensuring that solar is included in the utility's long-term power plans, updated every three years. Lauren "Bubba" McDonald, Jr., saw other states moving toward solar, looked at Germany's record-setting solar investments, and concluded that Georgia was being left behind with its focus on nuclear and coal. He wasn't going to let it stay there.

McDonald could have more solar support joining him on the regulatory commission soon. Solar advocates expect a voter backlash this fall against the all-Republican, elected commission over a costly nuclear power plant expansion.

If voters boot one or both of the PSC members on the ballot and replace them with pro-solar Democrats, that would solidify a solar-friendly block on the commission—likely leading to more utility-scale solar, and, as Georgia Tea Party activist Debbie Dooley argues, potentially influencing the General Assembly to take a fresh look at giving rooftop solar a boost.

"The cost overruns have become an issue," said University of Georgia political science professor Trey Hood. While it's hard for any Democrat to win statewide office Georgia, he said, "people can directly connect the dots" between the PSC and their power bills.

Solar advocates from both parties see potential for ramping up clean energy in the state even more.

"Georgia is at a clean energy crossroads," said Jennette Gayer, state director of the group Environment Georgia. "We have the potential to continue to grow our clean-energy footprint. The question is do we flatline or continue that upward trajectory."

Falling Prices, Low Interest Rates, Lots of Sun

Georgia's solar capacity has increased dramatically in the past five years, ever since the PSC required Georgia Power—an investor-owned utility with 2.5 million customers—to install hundreds of megawatts of solar farms starting in 2013.

With Georgia lawmakers avoiding policies that could be viewed by conservatives as subsidies, the state achieved much of its solar growth through an energy planning process with Georgia Power that is overseen by the PSC.

The commission doesn't view its solar requirements as a type of mandate. "It's an agreement between Georgia Power and the PSC," said commission spokesman Bill Edge.

...

https://www.ecowatch.com/california-solar-homes-2566690235.html

California Set to Require Solar on Most New Homes

California could become the first state in the country to require solar panels on most new homes.

The state's energy commission will vote on the new standard on Wednesday, May 9 and they are expected to approve it, the Orange County Register reported.

If approved, the mandate would apply to all houses, condos and apartment buildings up to three stories tall that obtain building permits after Jan. 1, 2020. The exception will be for homes that are shaded by trees or buildings or have a roof too small to accommodate solar panels.

The plan will not require the home to reach "net-zero" status, which means the total amount of energy consumed is equal to the amount of renewable energy created. But homebuilders who install a battery, like a Tesla Powerwall, will get a "compliance credit" that allows them to further reduce the size of the solar array.

The standards could add $25,000 to $30,000 to the construction costs compared with homes built to the 2006 code, C.R. Herro, the vice president of environmental affairs for Meritage Homes, told the Orange County Register. Herro added that the homeowner will save an estimated $50,000 to $60,000 in reduced operating costs over the solar system's 25-year lifespan.

However, critics warn the new mandate could worsen the state's housing shortage by making homes more unaffordable. Other detractors argue that the proposal does not go far enough, and that California should mandate net-zero homes.

The Golden State, with 19.8 gigawatts of solar PV capacity, is the nation's undisputed solar champion (it has five-times the capacity of second-ranked North Carolina.) About 15 to 20 percent of new single-family homes in California currently include solar installations.

Two years ago, San Francisco became the first major city in the U.S. to require all buildings 10 floors or less to designate at least 15 percent of the rooftop for solar use. The famously green metropolis was following in the footsteps of the smaller towns Lancaster and Sebastopol. The municipalities, which are also in California, passed similar mandates in 2013.

California has emerged as an environmental warrior in recent years. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Gov. Jerry Brown and the California Air Resources Board are leading a coalition of 17 states and the District of Columbia in suing the Trump administration for blocking greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles that aimed to reduce air pollution and curb U.S. drivers' contributions to the global climate crisis.

elated Articles Around the Web

https://www.ecowatch.com/rooftop-solar-state-policies-2563502732.html

Ten of the nation's sunniest states get a failing grade for policies that actively block, or don't encourage, rooftop-solar development, according to Throwing Shade, a new report from the Center for Biological Diversity.

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin account for more than 33 percent of the total rooftop-solar potential of small buildings in the contiguous U.S. but less than 8 percent of net generation in 2017. All of them get an "F" in today's report.

"Instead of leading us out of the climate crisis, these sunny states are casting a long shadow across our potential for rooftop solar," said Greer Ryan, a renewable energy and research specialist with the Center for Biological Diversity and author of the report. "The Trump administration certainly isn't going to fix our climate, so it's vital that these states step up."

...

===

https://www.alternet.org/environment/donald-trump-just-dealt-major-blow-renewable-energy

President Trump has imposed steep tariffs on imports of solar panels and energy cells. The 30 percent tariff is a major blow to the renewable energy industry and comes as Trump moves to incentivize the fossil fuel industry, loosening environmental restrictions and moving to open up new public waters for offshore drilling. On Monday, Trump also announced tariffs on imports of some washing machines. The moves will likely further escalate tensions over trade with China and other nations.

https://www.ecowatch.com/solar-schools-us-2513536603.html

5,500 K-12 Schools Have Already Gone Solar

Nearly 5,500 K-12 schools in the U.S. are harnessing the sun's rays for energy, according to a new report by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the Solar Foundation and clean energy nonprofit Generation 180. That means about five percent of all K-12s in the nation are solar powered.

The study, Brighter Future: A Study on Solar in U.S. Schools, 2nd Edition, touts that this switch to renewableshas allowed schools to reduce their electricity bills, all while freeing up resources to invest in education. Roughly four million students attend such schools.

A total of 5,489 schools have a combined capacity of 910 megawatts, which is enough to power more than 190,000 homes, the study found.

Here are some notable state achievements from the Brighter Future report:

California leads the nation with 1,946 solar schools and a 489-megawatt capacity.

Nevada has the highest adoption rate, with 23 percent of schools using solar energy statewide.

Arizona has the most solar school capacity on a per capita basis, at 86 watts per student.

As GreenTechMedia reported, cumulative PV capacity on K-12 school buildings has increased by 86 percent since 2008. The reason behind the surge is down to dipping installation prices and new financing options. The cost of installing solar in schools has decreased 66 percent in the past seven years.

...

'Blocking the Sun': New Report Documents Efforts to Undermine Rooftop Solar

While nearly 9 in 10 Americans support the development of more solar energy, electric utilities and fossil fuel-backed special interests are trying to hold off the inevitable renewable-energy future by promoting policies that would make rooftop solar harder to obtain.

A new report released Thursday by Environment America Research & Policy Center documents 20 entities, across 12 states, who sought to roll back key policies driving solar power over the past year.

"It's completely clear that Americans want more solar power, for the good of our environment, our health and our local economies," said Bret Fanshaw, solar program coordinator with Environment America and report co-author. "We cannot allow for a narrow set of interests to block the ability of everyday citizens to tap into clean and renewable solar power on the roofs of our homes and businesses."

Fueled by strong public policies, solar energy is growing by leaps and bounds, with enough solar capacity installed in the U.S. to power 1 in 14 American homes. The American public has demanded solar power because it is clean and increasingly affordable, with costs down two-thirds over the past decade.

The "Blocking the Sun" report shows, however, that electric utilities and special interests are actively undermining access to solar energy across the country.

According to a Frontier Group analysis of the most recent N.C. Clean Energy Technology Center '50 States of Solar' report, at least 90 policy actions in U.S. states could affect the growth of rooftop solar generation as of mid-2017. They include limits on net metering or new utility fees that make solar power less affordable.

"We're seeing a continued, concerted effort to knock down some of the best solar policies out there by some of the most powerful state utilities and fossil fuel actors" said Hye-Jin Kim, policy associate at Frontier Group and report co-author. "We've done this study three years in a row, and despite overwhelming public approval of solar power, the industry attacks on pro-solar policies continue."

Often operating in dense regulatory proceedings, electric utilities like Duke Energy, Rocky Mountain Power and Arizona Public Service have urged state officials to lower credits to solar users,add special charges to rooftop solar owners and force customers into rate plans that would reduce the benefits rooftop solar can provide on your electricity bill.

Efforts by electric utilities to stall solar progress have been coupled with, and in some cases, orchestrated by, fossil fuel front groups such as the Consumer Energy Alliance and utility trade groups such as the Edison Electric Institute.

In many cases, it's working.The Indiana Energy Association, an industry group, successfully lobbied on behalf of the state's biggest electric utilities to phase out Indiana's key rooftop solar program this year, replacing it instead with a new policy that limits compensation for generating rooftop power.

The Trump administration has appointed allies of the electric utilities and fossil fuel companies to key positions within the Department of Energy and other federal agencies. Those appointees are making a concerted effort to undermine solar power at the national level. Studies put forth by Energy Sec. Rick Perry question the value of rooftop solar and attempt to justify support for coal and nuclear plants over renewable energy.

The "Blocking the Sun" report recommends state and national decision-makers resist utility and fossil fuel industry attempts to reduce the economic viability of distributed solar energy, and reject policies to limit the use of this clean, renewable and increasingly economical source of power.

"To meet our major environmental challenges and reach 100 percent renewable energy, we must harness the power of the sun on exponentially more rooftops across America," said Fanshaw. "The people want this to happen—it's up to our public officials to stand up to powerful interests and make going solar easier, not harder."

ref

https://environmentamericacenter.org/reports/amc/blocking-sun-utilities-and-fossil-fuel-interests-are-undermining-american-solar-power

11/17

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Solar power is clean, affordable and popular with the American people. The amount of solar energy currently installed in the U.S. can power one in 14 American homes; that amount is expected to triple within the next five years.

The growth of American solar energy in the past decade has been the result of smart solar-friendly state policies like net metering and tax incentives for solar infrastructure, putting clean energy within financial reach of millions more Americans. The recent appointment of officials favored by electric utilities and fossil fuel interests to key positions within the Department of Energy and other federal agencies makes the preservation of strong solar policies in the states more important than ever.

In 2017, utilities continue to chip away at key state policies that put rooftop solar on the map in the United States, making it harder for Americans to invest in clean energy.

This report documents 20 fossil fuel-backed groups and electric utilities running some of the nation’s most aggressive campaigns to slow the growth of solar energy in 12 states, including eight attempts to reduce net metering benefits and seven attempts to create demand charges for customers with solar power. Citizens and policy-makers must be aware of the tools that utilities are using to undermine solar energy across America and redouble their commitment to strong policies that move the nation toward a clean energy future.

A national network of utility interest groups and fossil fuel-backed think tanks has provided the funding, model legislation and political cover to discourage the growth of rooftop solar power.

The Edison Electric Institute, the trade group that represents U.S. investor-owned electric utilities, launched the current wave of attacks on solar in 2012. Since then, EEI has worked with the American Legislative Exchange Council to create model legislation to repeal state renewable electricity standards and attack net metering.
The American Legislative Exchange Council also provides utility and fossil fuel interests with access to state legislators, and its anti-net metering policy resolution has inspired legislation in states like Washington and Utah.
TheKoch brothers have provided funding to the national fight against solar by funneling tens of millions of dollars through a network of opaque nonprofits. The Koch-funded campaign organization Americans for Prosperity (AFP) has carried out anti-solar organizing efforts.
The Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) is a Houston-based front group for the utility and fossil fuel industry, representing companies like Florida Power and Light, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Shell Oil. CEA has spent resources and shipped representatives across the country to help utilities fight their battles in states like Florida, Indiana, Maine and Utah.
The state industry group Indiana Energy Association successfully lobbied on behalf of the state’s biggest electric utilities to end net metering, replacing it instead with a new solar policy that limits consumer compensation for generating rooftop power.

At thestate level,electric utilities have used the support provided by national anti-solar interests, as well as their own ample resources, to attack key solar energy policies.

In Florida, Florida Power and Light, Gulf Power Electric, Tampa Electric Company and Duke Energy, the largest utility in the U.S., spent millions of dollars funding the front group, Consumers for Smart Solar, which was the primary backer of a failed 2016 ballot initiative that would have restricted rooftop solar growth. In 2017, Florida Power and Light drafted language for a new bill to restrict solar growth in Florida.
Two major Arizona utilities – Arizona Public Service and Salt River Project – have successfully pushed for anti-rooftop solar policies. Arizona Public Service, the biggest utility in Arizona, has also been accused of improperly cultivating influence with the state commission that regulates utilities and funneling dark money into recent commissioner elections.
In Utah, Rocky Mountain Power tried once again to eliminate net metering and charge additional fees to its 20,000 customers that generate rooftop power. Public outcry from ratepayers and the solar industry forced Rocky Mountain Power to settle, grandfathering all current solar customers into net metering.
In Texas, El Paso Electric renewed its past attempt to create a separate, and more expensive, rate class for solar customers. In 2015, the utility spent $3.1 million on filing and negotiating fees, an amount ultimately charged to ratepayers, before dropping the proposal, only to pick it up again this year.
In 2015, Nevada Energy successfully campaigned the Nevada utilities commission to eliminate net metering, a move that effectively halted the growth of rooftop solar in its service territory for two years. After widespread public protest, state legislators effectively reinstated net metering in 2017.

As of mid-2017, there were at least 90 ongoing policy actions in U.S. states with the potential to affect the growth of rooftop generation, such as limits on net metering or new utility fees that make solar power less affordable.

State decision-makers should resist utility and fossil fuel industry influence, and reject policies such as

Elimination of, restrictions on, or unfair caps on net metering;
Discriminatory surcharges or tariffs for solar customers;
Utility rate designs that discourage solar adoption;
Unnecessary regulatory burdens on solar energy; and
Rollbacks of renewable electricity standards.

In addition, state leaders should embrace ambitious goals for solar energy and adopt policies that will help meet them, including:

Considering the benefits of distributed solar energy to the grid, to ratepayers and to society in any rate making or policy decisions about solar energy;
Implementing strong net metering and interconnection standards, which enable many customers to meet their own electricity needs with solar power;
Encouraging community shared solar projects and virtual net metering, which can expand solar access to more customers;
Enacting or expanding solar or distributed renewable carve-outs and renewable electricity standards;
Enabling financing mechanisms to allow for greater solar access to businesses and residents;
Allowing companies other than utilities to sell or lease solar to residents and businesses; and
Making smart investments to move toward a more intelligent electric grid that will enable distributed sources of energy such as solar power to play a larger role.

Policymakers should also uphold our country’s commitment to reduce carbon pollution. Solar power will play a major role in any strategy to reduce global warming pollution and the carbon footprint of the energy we generate and consume.

tariff threat, update https://www.ecowatch.com/solar-trump-itc-2489470074.html

https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-us-solar-boom-2488025107.html

uk FT tempest in a teapot

https://www.ecowatch.com/electric-cars-uk-2476528989.html

fla bs beat? but

https://www.ecowatch.com/rooftop-solar-2457456703.html

How Utilities Are Trying to Slow Down Rooftop Solar

By David Pomerantz

The New York Times reported earlier this month about how utilities around the country, and their trade group the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), have worked to weaken rooftop solar policies in an attempt to stave off the threat to their business model.

The article featured some of Energy and Policy Institute's reporting, including :{our :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}::{expose:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: of Brian McCormack, former EEI executive and current Chief of Staff to Energy Secretary Rick Perry, for his role in attacking rooftop solar while at EEI, as well as our uncovering of Florida utilities' deceptive anti-solar ballot initiative in that state last year.

Some important aspects of the story of utilities' efforts did not make it into the Times coverage though:

Upset About EEI? There's a Good Chance You're Funding Them

The Times exposed the central role played by the Edison Electric Institute in driving the utility industry's anti-rooftop solar strategy:

At a January 2016 board meeting of the Edison institute, attended by chief executives of the country's largest utilities, Thomas R. Kuhn, the group's president, counseled against complacency.

"Years, ago, I think a lot of people said, 'That's not going to come to our area,'" he said, according to a recording of his remarks made available by a participant. "And now we see it in each and every state," he said.

"EEI is happy to come to any state at any time," he added. "We have two dozen states we are working on."

If you're angry about EEI, here's some bad news for you: there's a high chance that you're paying the salaries of the trade association's executives.

Our report *Paying for Politics* detailed how the nation's investor-owned electric utility customers are subsidizing EEI via their bills every month. Investor-owned utilities embed their EEI membership dues into rates, forcing their customers to pay for a policy agenda constructed primarily for the benefit of utilities' shareholders, not their customers. Since most customers have no choice about their utility, there's not much they can do about it.

Despite Efforts, Utilities Cannot Stop Distributed Solar Energy

And here's some better news: The Times story focused onIndiana, where utilities scored a victory when they lobbied to pass a law that would unravel net metering, the policy that dictates how much a utility must pay solar owners for the excess electricity they sell back to the grid. But another state reveals how the utilities' strategy can, and often will, backfire.

In Nevada, utility NV Energy succeeded in 2015 at lobbying regulators to reduce net metering payments. The industry perceived it as a victory that other utilities could learn from—in January 2017, EEI and NV Energy announced that Tony Sanchez, an NV Energy senior vice-president who helped lead the utility's efforts in the net metering debates, was taking on a "key loaned executive" role with EEI.

But while the utility industry celebrated what they thought was a big win for NV Energy, Nevadans became furious at the lost solar jobs and the utility's influence at slowing down the growth of a technology that people from across the political spectrum love. The utility's victory was short-lived. In June 2017, the legislature unanimously passed, and Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval signed, a bill to restore the old net metering rates.

Not only that, but last November, the state's voters passed by a large margin a ballot initiative to break up NV Energy's monopoly entirely—political observers in the state perceive the amendment's success in part as a referendum on NV Energy's unpopularity in the wake of the company's attacks on solar.

The Nevada story should serve as a warning for utilities: In places where they try to attack popular pro-solar policies, a popular backlash risks weakening their political capital with regulators and legislators.

In the long run, utilities have even bigger problems than their political fortunes. Even where they win short-term victories on policies like net metering, the combination of rooftop solar panels plus batteries, which are getting cheaper faster than anyone expected, will enable more and more customers to buy less and less electricity from their utilities. Dave Roberts of Vox recently authored a piece on the topic aptly headlined: Utilities fighting against rooftop solar are only hastening their own doom.

As Roberts writes, quoting a recent McKinsey study:

"In a low-cost storage environment," McKinsey writes, the rate structures utilities are monkeying around with "are unlikely to be effective at mitigating load losses." In other words, customers are still going to keep generating more of their own power.

The Times piece was important to expose how utilities are coming after solar. But it's worth remembering that in the long run, they won't stop distributed renewable energy, and will be better served learning to co-exist with it than to keep fighting it.

desmog

On June 3, two days after President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate accord, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi exchanged a hug with French President Emmanuel Macron during an official visit to Paris. Modi and Macron pledged to achieve emissions reductions beyond their nations’ commitments under the Paris Agreement, and Macron announced he will visit India later this year for a summit on solar power.

For observers who equate India’s energy production with a reliance on coal, this exchange came as a surprise. Modi’s internationally visible pledge would put India three years ahead of schedule to achieve its “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” to the Paris climate agreement. Instead of shifting to 40 percent renewables by 2030, India now expects to surpass this goal by 2027.

https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/11/26/rooftop-solar-threatened-arizona-biggest-public-utility-takes-over-commission-regulates-it

Swanson's law - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Swanson's**_law

:{:{Swanson's:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Law is an observation that the price of :{solar:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: photovoltaic modules tends to drop 20 percent for every doubling of cumulative shipped volume. At present rates, costs halve about every 10 years. The Law is named after Richard :{Swanson:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, the founder of SunPower Corporation, a :{solar:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: panel manufacturer.:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

== Percent margin needed to pass Florida's Amendment 1, a ballot measure that investor-owned utilities are promoting as pro-solar but that opponents say aims to protect the utilities' monopoly and slow the state's transition to solar power:60

Amount raised by Consumers for Smart Solar, the group promoting Amendment 1: more than $21.5 million

Percent of that amount which came from big utilities and other companies whose bottom lines would be hurt by encouraging consumers to switch to solar power: 80

Amount contributed to the by Duke Energy alone: more than $5.7 million

Amount contributed by Florida Power and Light, which is owned by Florida-based NextEra Energy: almost $5.5 million

Amount contributed by the 60 Plus Association, a conservative political advocacy group that's received tens of millions of dollars from organizations associated with the brothers that run the Koch Industries oil and chemical conglomerate: over $1.4 million

Factor by which the amount raised by Consumers for Smart Solar exceeds total funds raised by the grassroots opposition campaign group, Floridians for Solar Choice, a politically diverse coalition that includes the League of Women Voters, the Sierra Club, the Christian Coalition and various Republican groups: 10

Number of professional signature-gathering firms the utility-backed campaign hired in order to get its measure on this year's ballot:

Date on which Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente, in her dissent from the 4-3 decision allowing Amendment 1 to appear on the ballot, warned that the initiative was a "wolf in sheep's clothing": 3/31/2016

Date on which the Clear Language Institute, a nonprofit that promotes using easy-to-understand language in legislation, bestowed its first "Deceptive Language Award" on the pro-Amendment 1 group for misleading voters: 10/2/2016

Florida's ranking among states for solar energy potential: 3

Its ranking among states for installed solar capacity: 14

Number of electricity customers in Florida: 9 million

Number of rooftop solar systems in the state: fewer than 12,000

Date on which early voting begins in Florida: 10/24/2016

In a recent poll, percent of likely Florida voters who said they planned to vote for Amendment 1: 84==

good one failed # sigs: bad one deceptive

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article69246732.html

alford astroturf florida initiative: 60 plus

bs: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/national-black-chamber-of-commerce-joins-effort-in-support-of-consumer-friendly-smart-solar-amendment-300119839.html**

WASHINGTON, July 28, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) today announced that it has joined the Consumers for Smart Solar effort in support of the Smart Solar Amendment, a consumer-friendly alternative to the Shady Solar Amendment proposed by Floridians for Solar Choice.

The NBCC, who submitted a brief to the Florida Supreme Court on the determination of Floridians for Solar Choice's proposed ballot title and summary for the 2016 General Election ballot, decried the Shady Solar Amendmentas misleading, flying under "false colors" by not disclosing to voters that the amendment would require a restructuring of Florida's framework for regulating electric utilities. To view NBCC's brief in full, please click here.

"As an advocate of small and minority-owned businesses, the National Black Chamber of Commerce is concerned with the substantial, negative impacts the Shady Solar Amendment may have on small and minority businesses," said Harry C. Alford, President/CEO of NBCC. "These negative impacts – potential increases in electric service rates and higher state and local taxes – are why we oppose the Shady Solar Amendment."

"We are proud to join the Consumers for Smart Solar effort and support their consumer-friendly Smart Solar Amendment," said Alford. "We know this amendment will make solar energy choice a constitutional right for Floridians; but, most importantly, it provides much-needed protections for all Florida consumers and businesses."

For more information on NBCC, please visit NationalBCC.org, follow @NationalBCC and like FB.com/NationalBCC.

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/green-tea-party-solar

http://www.globalpossibilities.org/nations-first-solar-roadway-coming-to-historic-route-66/

===

chile free?

http://www.alternet.org/environment/renewable-energy-soars-record-breaking-levels-across-globe

solar economy scher (sp) bk

===

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariff

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved a feed-in tariff on 31 January 2008 effective immediately.^[116]

In 2010, Marin Energy Authority launched the first Community Choice Aggregate Feed-in Tariff program. The program was updated in November 2012, and now offers 20-year fixed-price contracts, with prices varying by energy source (peak, base-load, intermittent) and progress towards the current program cap of 10-MW.

Municipal utility companies enacted feed in tariff pilot programs in Palo Alto and Los Angeles: Palo Alto CLEAN (Clean Local Energy Accessible Now) is a program to purchase up to 4MW of electricity generated by solar electric systems located in CPAU's service territory. In 2012 the minimum project size was 100 kW. Rates of purchase are between 12.360 ¢/kWh to 14.003 ¢/kWh depending on the length of the contract. The City began accepting applications on 2 April 2012.^[117]

On 17 April 2012, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's Board of Water and Power Commissioners approved a 10MW FiT Demonstration Program.^[118]

As of 1 January 2010 state laws allowed homeowners to sell excess power to the utility. Previously the homeowner would get no credit for over-production over the course of the year. In order to get the California Solar Initiative (CSI) rebate the customer was not allowed to install a system that deliberately over-produces thereby, encouraging efficiency measures to be installed after solar installation. This over-production credit was not available to certain municipal utility customers namely Los Angeles Water and Power.

Florida

ammonia fertil

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/05/ammonia-fertilizer-farming

nevada loss

http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/05/09/we-were-booming-and-now-we-re-dead-how-nevada-s-solar-industry-bright-spot-turned-dark

boom dead

Louise Helton, owner of One Sun Solar Electric in Las Vegas, says that since January her company is doing more work removing solar panels from rooftops than installing them.

But at least she’s still in business, unlike many solar entrepreneurs in Nevada. She’s had to diversify into LED lighting installation and other sources of income.

“During the recession, rooftop solar was the bright spot in the Nevada economy,” Helton tells DeSmog. “We were booming. And now we’re dead.”

It was a decision by the Public Utility Commission of Nevada (PUCN) in December that delivered a fatal blow to rooftop solar in the sunniest state in the U.S.

By removing a key incentive for rooftop solar customers — net metering — the PUC made it prohibitively expensive for existing and future solar customers to use solar panels to generate part or all or their electricity needs.

And it turned electricity-generating rooftop panels from a net-plus for homeowners to a technological albatross, at least for the near future.

“You have people making decisions to buy these panels with fixed incomes,” Helton says.

“Seniors have tried to make the right decision to preserve their future dollars. All of this is impacting them. Now the value of your greatest asset, a home, and the equity, for solar panels to present themselves as something that was a huge asset, now they’re the opposite. It’s devastating.”

At the end of April, a subcommittee of Governor Brian Sandoval’s Nevada energy task force said that existing Nevada solar customers should be grandfathered in under an old rate structure, which would grant them a cheaper power rate until 2035.

That marks an about-face from the most controversial provision of the PUCN’s December decision.

But if the full task force agrees to grandfather existing customers, and makes the PUCN agree to the same, it won’t do anything to revive rooftop solar, an industry that was dominated by smaller entrepreneurs.

The fact that Sandoval convened the Task Force in the first place, solar advocates say, suggests that this former utility energy lawyer knows his appointed PUCN members may have inflicted lasting damage on the solar energy industry in Nevada, something that an aide to Sandoval admitted.

End of Net Metering

What upended Nevada’s solar energy industry was the PUCN’s decision to change the rules for net metering.

Net metering lets customers bank credit for excess electricity that goes into the grid during the daytime, then pull out the same amount of energy — a kilowatt for kilowatt exchange — when they need it.

Solar customers that don’t generate enough electricity must pay Nevada Energy (NVE), the only electricity utility in the state, for the difference. Net metering has allowed solar to thrive and encouraged people to make those investments for their homes and businesses, solar industry advocates say.

Under the old rules, NVE paid customers about 11 cents per kilowatt hour for energy they returned to the grid. Homeowners could typically save 10 to 20 percent on their energy bill, though some solar customers have reported seeing their bill drop to single dollars during some months.

No residential and commercial solar customers were getting rich, despite what some solar detractors have argued. Because customers are regulated on how big they can build a system, based on historic twelve months of power use, they can only build a system that can produce what they used in the last twelve months.

There was a benefit to the utility, too: no line loss. A customer can send out one kilowatt of energy that goes directly to his nearest neighbor.

The end of net metering not only eliminated most of the savings rooftop solar customers enjoyed, it also created a revenue stream for NVE at the expense of those customers.

NV Energy Takes Bigger Solar Cut

Every kilowatt generated on a Nevadan’s roof is one less kilowatt NVE can sell. At least that was the case until the new rate structure went into effect.

Under the new rules, solar customers are put in a new rate classification. Initially, their connection charge would go up by five dollars a month, under a tiered structure. After four years, they will pay $38 a month just to be connected to the grid. That’s before they’re charged for the energy they consume.

Exactly how much more solar energy customers will pay under the new rate system remains to be seen. The hottest weather hasn’t begun yet and, come June, residents will have a better idea. But there’s widespread fear that they will be paying quite a lot more.

What’s angered Nevada solar customers is that NVE is now monetizing the kilowatt hour (kWh) value. Whereas under net metering there was no monetization (just a kilowatt-for-kilowatt exchange), now NVE will value the kWh generated by a solar customer at less than what they’ll sell at full retail.

Scott Shaw, director of research and commercial development for Go Solar, an energy efficiency and solar installation company in Las Vegas, tells DeSmog that solar customers will be subsidizing other ratepayers for the benefit of the utility.

“When a solar customer sends energy to the grid it is during peak demand times. If you want to just look at the value of energy, at peak demand NVE is paying triple to five times what they would pay on the open market. Now NVE is guaranteed to pay two cents per kilowatt during demand time and sell it back to customers at 33 cents.”

Shaw and other solar advocates say there is no cost shift to non-solar customers — everything is already paid for fully. NVE gets paid fully for that one kWh of solar that it didn’t generate, that was provided at peak daytime hours, with no coal or gas or employees or long runs of wire involved — essentially at no cost to NVE.

Rooftop solar owners say they want the option of getting that one kWh back later at night when they need it, without being charged more for it, and without NVE charging them or their neighbors a premium for it.

Like in the good old days of 2015.

Who Pays For Solar?

In 2013, Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway purchased NVE for $5.6 billion.

“Owning utilities isn't a way to get rich,” Buffett has said. His statement may be accurate, solar advocates say, unless the utility is a monopoly and can access a new revenue source.

In this case that revenue source is solar energy. And if homeowners and businesses have already made the investment in capturing that energy, even better.

Solar advocates in Nevada insist the PUC decision to end net metering is a power grab to control solar rather than kill it.

In 2013, when Warren Buffet was preparing to buy NVE, bill SB123 was making its way through the Nevada legislature. SB123 required NVE South to:

Retire or eliminate at least 800 megawatts of coal-fired electric generation by December 31, 2019
Construct, acquire, or contract for 350 megawatts of renewables capacity through solicitations issued between December 2014 and December 2017; and
Construct or acquire 550 megawatts of company-owned electric generating capacity that can be renewable or conventional capacity.

With the passage of SB123, NVE was able to take their remaining coal-fired power plants offline and replace the power with solar. And they could own part of that solar field instead of making power purchase agreements with solar farms.

NVE got permission to pass on the costs of building those solar farms to the ratepayers. Ratepayers would help offset the value they were losing by taking coal-fired plants offline before the benefits of the coal-fired plants had been utilized.

But Scott Shaw says that NVE ran into a conundrum. Suddenly the demand for extra power was reduced because of the increase in solar customers.

According to Shaw:

“A utility’s profit is regulated on rates for selling the product. For transmission and generation, it’s not regulated by the PUC. When you have a bunch of rooftop solar putting out energy during peak demand, NVE will find it very hard to justify generation stations or new solar fields in the desert and transmission to support it when they go to the PUCN to ask for money. Where any utility makes their most revenue is in building generation facilities and transmission lines.”

Shaw and other industry watchers said that, not long after Buffet’s purchase of NVE, the PR campaign kicked in to denigrate solar customers as energy freeloaders. And not just in Nevada.

During an interview with CNBC in February, Buffett argued that when solar customers don't pay to maintain the power grid it leaves everyone else to pick up the tab.

That’s the argument the PUC used when changing its rate structure for solar customers. The commission justified its move to end net metering with a study designed to look at the impact of solar on non-solar customers. The study concluded solar customers were not contributing enough money to maintain the electrical grid, and they were actually making non-solar customers pay more to make up the difference.

Louise Helton tells DeSmog the PUC cost shift study was part of an orchestrated campaign by the utility and their backers to discredit and undermine net metering and that a recent third party analysis refutes some of the cost shift study’s conclusions.

“The third party analysis showed that in a cost of service study the methodology should have at least 11 different points,” Helton says. “PUC only looked at two of them in the cost shift study, avoided energy costs and line loss. They didn’t look at avoided capacity and several other very important points that would show solar customers are not benefitting at the expense of non-solar customers.”

Anti-solar commercials made by Solar Energy Fairness were dropped onto the Las Vegas and Reno TV markets, presumably to siphon off energy from the ballot initiative signature gathering.

“Big rooftop solar’s plan forces Nevada families who don’t have solar panels to pay higher power bills to subsidize rooftop solar,” intones the narrator.

The ads are “an attempt to pit ratepayer against ratepayer,” claims Frank Rieger, founder and president of Las Vegas rooftop solar company Sol-Up.

“They say the non-solar ratepayers are paying for the solar ratepayers, subsidizing the solar system owners. The opposite is true. If there wasn’t any solar in Nevada, then the utility could do whatever they want. Solar is the only guarantee to the non-solar rate payers that their prices will stay stable. Because solar is the only competition now for the monopoly (NVE).”

Nevada Hemorrhages Solar Jobs

Since January, national rooftop solar companies SolarCity and Sunrun have stopped seeking new business in the state and laid off hundreds of workers. The few small companies left are trying to stay above water and telling potential customers to be patient and wait out the storm.

“My feeling is 80 percent of all (small solar) companies are gone,” Frank Rieger tells DeSmog.

“But the worst problem is not the new regulation,” Rieger says. “It is the negativity. Everyone is talking down solar as if it doesn’t make sense anymore. Which is stupid. Regulations only regulate power back into the grid. Nobody can regulate what you create. If you never feed back into the grid your financial benefits are the same.”

SolarCity and others are continuing to challenge the changes to net metering, both in the courts and at the ballot box.

SolarCity and local companies faced a setback in March after a Carson City judge ruled to disqualify a ballot measure that would restore more generous rates for rooftop solar customers. Judge James Russell said his ruling was not about the merits of solar but about what he saw as the flawed framing of the measure.

Nevada solar companies and allies are now collecting signatures for a ballot initiative that would restore net metering if voters pass it in November. Unlike with referenda, ballot initiative language isn’t scrutinized by a judge.

Still, it’s an uphill slog even if the initiative does pass in November, according to a spokesperson for Bring Back Solar, the activist group pushing for the initiative. If voters say yes, the initiative must be considered by the state legislature when it convenes next year. And the legislature can change anything.

If they change one word, the initiative goes back to the people for another vote, meaning that the soonest it would go into effect would be July 1, 2017.

Solar companies left in the state would then have to limp along for at least one more year.

Brighter Days Ahead For Solar?

The residential solar market is booming in the U.S. with a 66 percent increase between 2014 and 2015. Until the end of last year, Nevada was riding the crest of that wave.

In 2015, the Solar Foundation reported over 8,000 jobs in solar in Nevada and it ranked number one in solar jobs per capita.

This year will be very different. And Nevada may not be the last state to kill solar, at least temporarily.

Though solar advocates recently preserved incentives in California, anotherbattle over residential solar incentives is heating up in Arizona.

There is one wild card in the game: battery technology. Many experts say that, at least right now, from a financial standpoint it doesn’t make much sense to install a rooftop solar array, which typically runs between $15,000 and $30,000, even with a federal incentive that can give them a 30 percent tax credit on the panel price.

But once the price of battery storage becomes more attractive for energy-generating households, utility rates could be irrelevant. New research shows that costs are falling fast enough for battery storage capacity, and that technology will soon be cheap enough for households with existing rooftop solar systems.

NONPROFIT LOSES FIRST ROUND IN FIGHT WITH N.C. OVER THIRD-PARTY SOLAR SALES: North Carolina regulators ruled against NC WARN after it installed solar panels on the roof of a church and sold it the electricity, saying the arrangement violates the state's private utility monopoly system. The nonprofit says it will take the case to court. (4/18/2016)

cda coal to solar plant nat am

http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/31/nanticoke-solar-farm/

http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/01/largest-floating-solar-farm/

http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/22/warren-buffett-war-solar-west/

http://desmogblog.com/2016/02/21/warren-buffett-s-quieter-quest-kill-solar-west

There are solar battles blazing all across the West right now, as utilities anchored to fossil fuel power plants strain to avoid the inevitable spread of solar across their areas of operation.

Not a month goes by without a story of some assault on solar-friendly policies by utilities or by the utility commissions that are often in their pocket.

Not a month goes by without a story of some assault on solar-friendly policies by utilities. Photo credit: Snake River Alliance

During the holidays at the end of 2015, it was Nevada’s utter dismembering of its net metering policy. Nevada is—or was—one of 42 states that offered net metering, a program through which customers with solar arrays are compensated for the energy they produce on their rooftops or in small installations connected to the electric grid.

NV Energy Inc. unleashed this full frontal attack on the program that—in one quick vote of three unelected commissioners—pulled the rug out from under 17,000 solar customers and eviscerated at least 8,000 solar jobs. And the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) was happy to oblige.

Nevada has the highest number of solar jobs per capita in the U.S., but for how long?

As Nevada’s PUCN invited this “solar black hole” over one of the nation’s sunniest states, many pointed out how NV Energy fought tooth and nail against the successful net metering plan and ultimately secured its demise.

NV Energy, the state’s largest utility, is a subsidiary of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Energy. This net metering battle was high profile.

Many have pitched it as a Buffett vs. Musk showdown, as NV Energy’s demands would prove to cripple Solar City’s business in the state, which was dependent on a consistent net metering program.

Elon Musk & communities v Warren Buffet & Big Biz. Fight for distributed #solar in Nevada https://t.co/eBXuKplNhV pic.twitter.com/PtlvO6ta3Z

— Amanda *$ (@Starbuck) December 23, 2015

But this is far from the only move Buffett is making against solar. In Utah, Rocky Mountain Power—a division of PacifiCorp, which is a fully-owned subsidiary of … you guessed it … Berkshire Hathaway Energy—proposed a charge for solar net metering customers similar to that which passed in Nevada. The Utah Public Service Commission voted that proposal down.

There’s a decent bit of spotlight on the net metering battles, but Buffett’s holdings are actively engaged in a quieter war on another solar front.

Yet just last year, Berkshire Hathaway Energy signed President Obama’s Climate Commitment, pledging to “lead on climate action.”

PURPA: “The Backdoor Solar Answer Out West”

At issue is a relatively little known federal statute that has been a huge boon to solar development around the country and especially in the big Western states. It’s called PURPA or the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act and it basically ensures that renewable generating facilities of a certain size (up to 80 megawatts; the projects that fit these conditions are called Qualifying Facilities or QFs) can sell their power to utilities for a certain fair price. That price is called the “avoided cost rate” in utility-speak and is basically what the utility would have had to pay for the same amount of power from another source or to generate it itself.

Problem is, utilities would rather generate the power themselves because they get a better return on those power plants that they own. Utilities don’t want to be told they have to enter into long term contracts with outside developers, even if the cost of the power is the same as what they would pay to generate it themselves.

But that’s what PURPA does. By mandating that the utilities approve these long term contracts with medium-scale solar and wind projects, the act has historically allowed a renewable energy developer to lock in a 15 to 20-year contract, providing the stability that secures the financing.

This security has helped hundreds of solar and wind projects plug into the grid. PURPA helped usher in the mini wind power boom in the early 1980s and, over the past decade, it has helped bring thousands of megawatts of wind online all across the West. Lately, solar is lining up in the queue to plug into PURPA contracts.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has gone so far as to call PURPA “the most effective single measure in promoting renewable energy” and a UBS Securities report recently called PURPA, “The Backdoor Solar Answer Out West.”

Look no further than Utah: a state that is dominated by coal-fired generation and that has no renewable portfolio standard. And a state where one company alone, SunEdison, has quickly built more than 700 megawatts of solar in a few short years.

Pages: 1 • 2

http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/26/u-s-blocks-india-solar-plan-trade-rules/

India has been told that it cannot go ahead as planned with its ambitious plan for a huge expansion of its renewable energy sector, because it seeks to provide work for Indian people. The case against India was brought by the U.S.

The ruling, by the World Trade Organization, says India’s National Solar Mission—which would create local jobs, while bringing electricity to millions of people—must be changed because it includes a domestic content clause requiring part of the solar cells to be produced nationally.

Sun-tracking discs at a vast solar thermal power plant in Rajasthan, India. Photo credit: Brahma Kumaris / Flickr

What a difference two months make. On Dec. 12 last year, U.S. President Barack Obama praised the Paris agreement on tackling climate change, just hours after it was finally concluded. “We’ve shown what’s possible when the world stands as one,” he said, adding that the agreement “represents the best chance we have to save the one planet that we’ve got.”

Clear-Cut Victory

...

http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/19/pakistan-parliament-goes-solar/

http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/29/rooftop-solar-wars/ CPUC supports

Koch Brothers + 11 Other Special Interest Groups Wage War on Solar

ecowatch.com/2015/10/09/koch-brothers-wage-war-solar/

The Koch brothers, Duke Energy and Arizona Public Service are among 12 special interest groups waging aggressive anti-solar campaigns across the country, often coordinated and behind the scenes, a new Environment America Research and Policy Center report said today.

While American solar power has increased four-fold since 2010, state by state, utilities and powerful industry front groups have begun chipping away at key policies that helped spur this solar boom, according to the analysis, “Blocking the Sun: 12 Utilities and Fossil Fuel Interests That Are Undermining American Solar Power.”

“Fossil-fuel interests and their allies have been using the same playbook to undermine solar power across the country,” said Bret Fanshaw, the solar program coordinator for Environment America. “And they’ve largely been operating in the shadows.”

The playbook: a national network of utility interest groups and fossil fuel industry-funded think tanks provides funding, model legislation and political cover for anti-solar campaigns. The report examines five of these major national players—Edison Electric Institute, American Legislative Exchange Council, Koch brothers and their front group Americans for Prosperity, Heartland Institute and Consumer Energy Alliance.

Then, in state after state, electric utilities use the support provided by these national anti-solar interests, supplemented by their own ample resources, to attack key solar energy policies. The report features seven utilities—Arizona Public Service, Duke Energy, American Electric Power, Berkshire Hathaway Industries, Salt River Project, FirstEnergy and We Energies.

“We found that most attacks on solar energy happen behind closed doors in utility agencies or in dense regulatory filings—away from public view,” said Gideon Weissman of the Frontier Group and co-author of the report. “That’s probably because they’re aimed at very popular policies that give regular consumers the chance to go solar.”

Charles and David Koch have an enormous financial stake in the fossil fuel industry through their company Koch Industries and its many subsidiaries. Koch Industries alone operates around 4,000 miles of pipeline, along with oil refineries in Alaska, Minnesota and Texas.

Through its front group Americans for Prosperity and funding to other like-minded entities, the Koch brothers have attacked solar laws in several states including Florida, Georgia, Kansas, North Carolina, Arizona, Minnesota, Ohio, South Carolina and Washington.

Utilities like Arizona Public Service augment resources from interests like the Kochs to forward an anti-solar agenda. Arizona Public Service admitted to funding anti-solar ads by 60 plus, a national Koch-backed front group that purports to represent seniors and it has been accused of improper influence with the Arizona Corporation Commission.

“I’ve seen first-hand how some energy monopolies have used money in campaigns to intimidate and manipulate policy makers and elected officials,” said Rep. Ken Clark, a state representative from Arizona who has pushed Arizona Public Service to disclose its political spending. “Aside from the question of renewable energy, this activity has become a threat to our electoral system.”

Arizona Public Service’s latest stealth move against solar has been to withdraw its request to raise fees on solar owners until the commission completes a study that would only examine costs and not benefits, of the resource.

In Florida, where solar capacity is far beneath its potential, Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity and Duke Energy, the largest utility in the U.S., have teamed up to block pro-solar policies. Duke Energy spent heavily to help re-elect Gov. Rick Scott, who campaigned against a state renewable electricity standard. Americans for Prosperity has mobilized its members and waged an aggressive ad campaign against a ballot initiative to expand rooftop solar by allowing third-party sales of panels. Duke Energy has also contributed to that effort.

The anti-solar coalition Consumers for Smart Solar, backed by Americans for Prosperity, Duke Energy and others, has now put forward a competing ballot measure in Florida to undermine the rooftop solar amendment.

“By wide margins, Americans support pro-solar policies,” said Fanshaw. “That’s why fossil fuel interests and their front groups have resorted to shady and deceptive tactics to undermine them. Ultimately it will be up to state leaders to reject these attacks and support a clean energy future.”

HOPE 2 win

Media Matters statement on winning injunction against Missouri AG Andrew Bailey in federal court

Fire and Flood: A People’s History of Climate Change, from 1979 to the Present

Judge rules that Dakota Access Pipeline must be shut down and emptiedMatthew Rozsa / Salonan 720

great

Dick’s crossed the NRA — and they hit back hard. Now Dick’s has to deal with… the best sales everDaily Kos

sign of great things to come

great: sometimes one election is all it takes

Giant Floating Solar Farms Could Make Fuel and Help Solve the Climate Crisis, Says Study

Building a Solar Industry Almost from Scratch

The Utilities' Argument

The Solar Entrepreneurs Fighting for a Future

Finding Solar Demand in an Untested Market

'We Want to Survive This Process'

24-Hour Solar Energy: Molten Salt Makes It Possible, and Prices Are Falling Fast

California Becomes First State to Require Solar on New Homes

Putting the Brakes on Solar Growth?

ALEC's Shadow in the DTE Proposal

More States' Solar Policies Targeted

'Just Transition' in Appalachia

Challenging Ohio's Regulatory System

Facebook Joins 100% Renewable Energy Revolution

===

Falling Prices, Low Interest Rates, Lots of Sun

California Set to Require Solar on Most New Homes

5,500 K-12 Schools Have Already Gone Solar

'Blocking the Sun': New Report Documents Efforts to Undermine Rooftop Solar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

How Utilities Are Trying to Slow Down Rooftop Solar

Swanson's law - Wikipedia

Florida

End of Net Metering

NV Energy Takes Bigger Solar Cut

Who Pays For Solar?

Nevada Hemorrhages Solar Jobs

Brighter Days Ahead For Solar?

Judge rules that Dakota Access Pipeline must be shut down and emptied Matthew Rozsa / Salonan 720

Dick’s crossed the NRA — and they hit back hard. Now Dick’s has to deal with… the best sales ever Daily Kos