webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

blackout grid

SEE TECO TEXAS

5 22 for now will include Perry GOP BS on renewable grid reliability

cop28 ff mention, i say fail saudi cop prez cjina push for FF gone so world will rely on them; stuart v; net zero soviet style ceNtral plan 3x renewable insane, ; al gore blame mental health crisis one of main reasons ynd ppl look at agw; 8 yo OCT sue epa indoctrination k to college baseless feAR EARTH WILL END UNLESS UN COMES UP W/ DOCUMENT; TOO HOT HOMEWORK DAY GRETA

no lnx vid

Top power grid watchdog warns fossil fuel shutdowns could destabilize future reliability

Assessment 'paints another grim picture of our nation’s energy future,' power industry group says

By Thomas Catenacci FOX Business

Phasing out fossil fuels is an ‘insane goal’: Marc Morano

Climate Depot executive editor Marc Morano discusses worldwide calls to phase out fossil fuels and Al Gore blaming the mental health crisis on climate change.

A lead watchdog group that oversees and monitors the U.S. power grid issued a warning Wednesday that the nation may soon face considerable reliability issues due to premature retirements of existing fossil fuel power sources.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) — a nonprofit organization that makes periodic recommendations to boost reliability — published its annual Long-Term Reliability Assessment (LTRA) report which concluded that large swaths of the U.S. face either an elevated or high risk of capacity shortfalls. NERC noted that premature retirements, or power plant shutdowns that occur before replacement power comes online, are a leading factor in determining future reliability issues.

"The electric power industry continues to face challenges in the future. A rapidly changing resource mix, a threat landscape, extreme weather, inverter-based resources," John Moura, NERC's director of reliability assessment and performance analysis, told reporters Wednesday on a media call.

"But really focusing in on reliability, managing the pace of a rapidly-changing resource mix, which includes not only making sure you don't retire prematurely, but also that we're building enough resources and making sure they're dispatchable really continues to be our greatest reliability risk in the future," Moura added.

US GRID OPERATORS WARN BIDEN'S POWER PLANT CRACKDOWN COULD TRIGGER 'SIGNIFICANT POWER SHORTAGES'

California windmills and power lines

A view of windmills and power lines in Tracy, California, on Aug. 17, 2022. (Reuters/Carlos Barria / Reuters Photos)

The LTRA report highlighted how the region managed by Midcontinent Independent System Operator, which oversees much of the Midwest, faces some of the highest grid risks as a result of coal generation retirements that are projected to outpace new green energy development at certain points in the future.

"Demand is forecast to increase and that's happening faster than their transitioning — their resource mix is growing. They have plans to retire about five gigawatts of coal-fired generation and replace that with natural gas-fired resources, also solar and some batteries," said Mark Olson, NERC's manager of reliability assessments. "But what we see is there are periods where, during this transition, they have capacity shortfalls."

In addition, the West, including California, and the Northeast, including New York, are regions facing elevated risk, while the remainder of the East Coast is facing normal risk heading into 2024.

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION RIGGED INTERNAL ANALYSIS, SOFTENING BLOW OF POWER PLANT REGULATIONS: REPORT

The report, meanwhile, comes as the Biden administration and several states continue to push for an aggressive transition from fossil fuel power generation to green energy sources like wind and solar.

In May, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled regulations targeting fossil fuel-fired power plant emissions, which grid operators have warned could exacerbate future reliability problems. In its announcement, the federal agency said the plan "would avoid" 617 million metric tons of carbon pollution through 2042 via new standards forcing plants to either utilize carbon capture technology or shut down.

Emissions spew from a large stack at the coal-fired Brandon Shores Power Plant in Baltimore on March 9, 2018.

According to the agency's analysis, the proposal would force U.S. electric generation derived by coal plants without carbon capture to decline 67% by 2030 and 100% by 2035, while coal plants with carbon capture will increase 29% and 13%, respectively, the analysis also showed.

WHITE HOUSE ECO COUNCIL AT ODDS OVER TECHNOLOGY CENTRAL TO BIDEN'S GREEN GOALS

"We commend NERC for its work to maintain a reliable supply of electricity," Michelle Bloodworth, the president and CEO of coal trade group America's Power, said Wednesday in a statement. "Unfortunately, NERC’s latest assessment is deeply troubling because it indicates that, despite several years of warnings about the possibility of electricity shortages in many parts of the country, the risk of electricity shortages has grown worse."

"This is largely due to coal retirements, EPA policies, and dangerous subsidies for unreliable sources of energy," she continued. "We again urge Congress and federal and state policymakers to act immediately on these continued warnings."

Michael Regan

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan testifies before the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 3. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images / Getty Images)

And Jim Matheson, the CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, which represents 900 local electric cooperatives nationwide, added that the report Wednesday was the latest to paint a "grim picture" for the future of the nation's power grid.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"NERC’s latest assessment paints another grim picture of our nation’s energy future as demand for electricity soars and the supply of always-available generation declines," Matheson said in a statement.

"Nine states saw rolling blackouts last December as the demand for electricity exceeded available supply," he said. "And proposals like the EPA’s power plant rule will greatly compound the problem. Absent a major shift in state and federal energy policy, this is the reality we will face for years to come."

---

energy and climate: subcommittee hearing today, Subcommittee Republican Leader David B. McKinley (R-WV) delivered the following opening remarks during a hearing with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan.

Excerpts and highlights from his prepared remarks:

WORST FEARS NEW BEING REALIZED

“Our worst fears are now being realized. Pursuing an ideologically driven goal of 100% renewables in such a condensed time frame will cause the grid to collapse. [PERRY AEA IER BS]

“Last summer, the head of global research at General Electric in New York told Subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko and me unequivocally that this would happen.

“And now, according to the Wall Street Journal, warnings of electricity shortages are growing across the United States.

“In the Midwest, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator is working to prepare for ‘worst case scenarios’ and expect a 5 gigawatt shortfall this summer.

“And just last Friday, Texas had to take steps to reduce strain on the grid. Nearly 3 gigawatt of capacity have gone offline because of high temperatures.

“Even California had to extend [? ]the operation of its gas-fired power plants last year.”

RENEWABLES AREN’T RELIABLE TO POWER OUR GRID

“So, what is the EPA doing to preserve and protect our grid?

“It seems like President Biden and the EPA are increasing regulations, rather than addressing the pending crisis we’re facing.

“Rather than ensure a reliable and resilient grid and keep the lights on across the country, the EPA is requesting almost $12 billion to pursue its climate change and environmental justice initiatives.[BI-PART INFRA bbb?]

“Look, with today’s science, renewables simply aren’t ready to fully power our grid.

“According to the Energy Information Administration, wind only works 35% of the time and solar only 25% of the time.

“And the Lawrence Livermore Lab found 81% of wind projects and 84% of solar projects do not reach commercial operations.

“So why does this EPA continue to pursue an agenda that will only take more fossil fuel capacity offline?”

EPA ISN’T BEING COOPERATIVE

“Mr. Chairman, the threat of electricity shortages has utilities taking steps to keep aging power plants running longer, but they’re fighting regulations. EPA is not being cooperative.

“And Congress has made significant investments over the last two years in carbon capture, like coal first, and carbon dioxide pipelines.

“These investments will let us preserve our fossil fuels and protect our grid.

“But EPA’s agenda doesn’t recognize that. You seem to want to fund more climate change and environmental justice programs.

“Neither of which will lead to grid liability [SIC HEH] , only blackouts across the nation.”

SUBCOMMITTEES

 Environment and Climate Change (117th Congress)

see pyle bradley AEA IER: trump transition

final draft on grid reliability?

:{http://www.alternet.org/environment/trumps-energy-secretary-rick-:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}::{perry-orders-dubious-study-against-wind-and-solar:(style="background-color:#ffcc66;"):}:

Secretary Rick Perry is cooking up a case to stifle further federal support of renewable wind and solar energy. He’s ordered a dubiously sourced staff study that is aimed to paint renewables as an unreliable source for the nation’s electric grid.

The study, due June 23, seeks to determine whether federal tax and subsidy policies favoring renewable energy have burdened “baseload” coal-fired generation, putting power grid reliability at risk. It is being spearheaded by Energy Department political appointeeTravis Fisher, who’s associated with a  Washington policy group that opposes almost any government aid for renewable energy.

Fisher wrote a 2015 report for the Institute for Energy Research that called clean energy policies “the single greatest emerging threat”to the nation’s electric power grid, and a greater threat to electric reliability than cyber attacks, terrorism or extreme weather.

The Institute for Energy Research and its advocacy arm, the American Energy Alliance, has been the “influential force in shaping Donald Trump’s plans to dismantle Obama administration climate initiatives,’’ according to Bloomberg News.

Headed by Thomas Pyle,a former director of federal affairs for Koch Industries, IER has already delivered its fossil fuel industry wish list to the Trump administration. It’s part of the “America First Energy Plan” that was posted on the White House website on Jan. 20.

As a blueprint for quashing renewable energy research and development, Perry’s call for the study immediately signaled alarm. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) slammed the study as “anti-wind.” University of Texas’ Energy Institute experts called the question of whether renewables are killing coal “would be similar to asking in the late 1990s whether email was killing fax machines and snail mail.’’

A letter from Advanced Energy Economy, American Wind Energy Association and Solar Energy Industries Association disputed the administration’s premise: “Policies supporting the deployment of these technologies are not playing an important role in the decline of coal and nuclear plants. Numerous studies have conclusively demonstrated that low natural gas prices and stagnant load growth are the principal factors behind the retirements in coal and nuclear plants.’’

Energy Department officials last week sought to reassure members of its electricity policy advisory panel that a grid reliability study “is gathering a range of viewpoints from experts at DOE’s national laboratories,” reported E&E News, a Washington new organization that covers energy issues.

ref

http://www.energyandpolicy.org/travis-fisher-rick-perry-grid-study/

Fisher, a Trump political appointee in the Department of Energy, wrote a 2015 report for the Institute for Energy Research that called clean energy policies “the single greatest emerging threat” to the nation’s electric power grid, and a greater threat to electric reliability than cyber attacks, terrorism, or extreme weather.

Fisher is now leading up a :{controversial grid study:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: ordered by Secretary of Energy Rick Perry under the pretense of ensuring the long-term reliability of the nation’s electricity supply. If Fisher’s past writings on the topic are any indication, the forthcoming DOE study is sure to be :{a thinly veiled political attack on renewable energy:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: aimed at :{propping up outdated coal and nuclear power plants:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: that can’t compete in today’s electricity market.

Rick Perry’s grid study sounds strikingly similar to the one Travis Fisher wrote for fossil fuel interests in 2015

:{:{:{

F}:isher wrote in his 2015 IER report:  In his}::{**February 2015 report**:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:for the Institute for Energy Research (IER), Fisher attacked wind and solar power as “unreliable” sources of electricity.That same year, IER and its lobbying arm, the American Energy Alliance (AEA), together :{received millions of dollars from foundations affiliated with the Koch brothers:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, who have :{bankrolled an all out campaign:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: to roll back state and federal clean energy policies. In a 2016 bankruptcy filing, coal producer Peabody Energy also :{disclosed that it contributed $50,000 to IER:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: in 2015.}:

The single greatest threat to reliable electricity in the U.S. does not come from natural disturbances or human attacks. Rather, the host of bad policies now coming from the federal government –  and unfortunately from many state governments – is creating far greater and more predictable problems with grid reliability.

He also offered this overview:

New stresses on the electricity delivery system are coming primarily from two types of policies:

1) Regulations that directly shut down reliable sources of electricity, such as coal and nuclear power, and

2) Subsidies and mandates that force increased amounts of unreliable sources of electricity on the grid, such as wind and solar power, and undermine the normal operation of reliable power plants.

Together, these two types of policies create a much less reliable grid and increase the chances of a major blackout.

A :{strikingly similar narrative:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: appeared in the memorandum fromSecretary Perry, who also:{**serves on President Trump’s National Security Council**:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, which ordered a new DOE study on grid reliability be prepared in just 60 days:

Baseload power is necessary to a well-functioning electric grid. We are blessed as a nation to have an abundance of domestic energy resources, such as coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric, all of which provide affordable base load power and contribute to a stable, reliable, and resilient grid. Over the last few years, however, grid experts have expressed concerns about the erosion of critical baseload resources.

Specifically, many have questioned the manner in which baseload power is dispatched and compensated. Still others have highlighted the diminishing diversity of our nation’s electric generation mix, and what that could mean for baseload power and grid resilience. This has resulted in part fromregulatory burdens introduced by previous administrations that were designed to decrease coal-fired power generation.Such policies have destroyed jobs and economic growth, and they threaten to undercut the performance of the grid well into the future. Finally, analysts have thoroughly documented the market-distorting effects of federal subsidies that boost one form of energy at the expense of others. Those subsidies create acute and chronic problems for maintaining adequate baseload generation and have impacted reliable generators of all types.

Secretary Perry’s memorandum included a specific order to examine, “The extent to which continued regulatory burdens, as well as mandates and tax and subsidy policies, are responsible for forcing the premature retirement of baseload power plants.”

Travis Fisher targeted state and federal clean energy policies for repeal

Perry’s words since his memorandum serve as a further reminder of the undue influence of IER and AEA over the Trump administration’s energy policies, made possible by :{AEA’s loyal support for Donald Trump:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:during the 2016 election.Perry recently revealed the Trump administration’s :{half-baked and “highly classified” plan:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: to preempt state and local energy policies in the name of national security.

The clean energy policies that Fisher targeted for repeal in his 2015 study for IER provide some clues about the possible identity of the “mandates and tax and subsidy policies” to which Perry made vague reference in his memo. These included a mix of state and federal policies designed to increase the use of renewable energy, as well as reduce carbon dioxide and mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Fisher specifically recommended that policymakers repeal:

These are the sort of clean energy policies that have long been :{targeted for repeal:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: by IER and AEA and their backers in the fossil fuel industry. Beyond Capitol Hill, a similar study with DOE’s stamp could reignite :{failed attacks against renewable energy policies in states like Ohio:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, where :{IER and AEA’s misleading reports:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: have failed the smell test.

Fisher also referenced “bureaucratic hurdles” at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which he claimed has contributed to closure of “reliable” nuclear power plants. He pointed to the NRC as a factor in the closing of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, but failed to mention the plant had been plagued by problems in recent years, including :{a cooling tower collapse and radioactive tritium leak:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:.

Despite all the doomsday scenarios of electricity blackouts thrown into Travis Fisher’s 2015 grid study for IER, he never named a single example where one of these clean energy policies actually caused the lights to go out. Most of these policies had been on the books for years, without causing the sorts of blackouts that Fisher predicted for the near future.

Real world experience has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that grid operators and utilities can comply with clean energy policies, while also providing a reliable supply of electricity. After all, a total of :{29 states have renewable energy standards:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: and :{39 states have net metering:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: on the books. The :{Production Tax Credit for wind power:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: has been around since 1992. Utilities have :{already been complying:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: with the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard.

During the 1970’s, :{electric utilities like American Electric Power:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: ran ads that made the same sort of “doomsday predictions” about the Clean Air Act. In February 2015, the EPA :{responded to similar attacks:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: on the Clean Power Plan by pointing out that, “… at no time in the more than 40 years that EPA has been implementing the Clean Air Act has compliance with air pollution standards resulted in reliability problems.”

Fisher should heed his own advice

“Heed the advice of grid experts, such as the electrical engineers at NERC, FERC, utilities, and regional transmission organizations,” Fisher recommended at the end of his 2015 study for IER.

What the grid gurus have told us over and over again is that :{renewable energy is reliable:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, and we can use much more of it in the years to come using the tools and technologies that are available today. Plus, clean energy policies generate cleaner electricity and a host of co-benefits. For example, :{previous analyses of state renewable energy standards by two of DOE’s national labs:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: have powered new jobs and reduced carbon dioxide and other harmful air pollutants, all at little to no additional cost to consumers. Rick Perry has :{praised those labs:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: as national scientific and engineering treasures.

Travis Fisher downplayed real threats to the power grid

“Extreme weather places immense stress on the electricity system,” Fisher admitted in his 2015 grid study for IER. “In fact, bad weather remains the number one cause of power outages.”

Fisher’s own words exposed his all too obvious attempt to mischaracterize clean energy policies as “the single greatest threat to reliable electricity,” as he put it. Meanwhile, DOE published a :{2015 report:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: that identified the ways that that extreme weather and climate change threaten reliable electricity in every region of the U.S.

:{A total of 8.5 million people lost power:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: during 2012’s Hurricane Sandy. The impact of that storm  :{was strengthened by climate change:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:. Long :{lines formed at gas stations:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: as people sought fuel to power backup generators. Yet Fisher made no mention of Hurricane Sandy in his 2015 IER study.

In fact, he avoided any mention of the threat that climate change poses to the electric grid. He instead focused on his attacks on the Clean Power Plan, which set the first-ever national limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that contribute to climate change. Fisher even mixed in the sort of rhetoric common among the network of fossil fuel funded climate skeptics that IER and AEA are a part of.

:{:{:{

To his credit, Fisher did mention that coal and natural gas can face challenges during periods of extreme cold. He focused on how the Polar Vortex disrupted the natural gas market as demand spiked. However, like many coal backers, Fisher either missed or ignored the fact that}::{ coal-fired power plants accounted for 26 percentage of outages:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: in the ERCOT and Eastern Interconnections. He also neglected to mention that record :{wind power had saved electric utility customers money during recent periods of extreme cold:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:.“}:The problem with calling it the ‘Clean Power Plan’ is that carbon dioxide is not dirty but rather a clean, odorless gas,” Fisher wrote.}:

Fisher also downplayed the threat posed by cyber, electromagnetic pulse, or terrorist attacks on the nation’s power supply. He suggested the threat of U.S. retaliation served as an effective deterrent effect against attacks on the nation’s power grid. He acknowledged :{one real world example in San Jose:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, where quick action by the local utility averted a blackout after a 2014 sniper attack on a power substation.  

However, Fisher ignored the 9/11 terrorist attacks of 2011. While terrorists’ primary target in New York was the World Trade Center, the attack also knocked out power to Lower Manhattan and destroyed two power substations. More than 2,000 Con Edison employees eventually :{restored power :(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:after they laid down 36 miles of emergency cable to bring electricity back to the impacted area. Initial estimates by Con Edison put :{the cost of repairs at $400 million:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:.

Fisher didn’t deny that extreme weather and “human attacks,” as he called them, posed significant threats, but he did mischaracterize clean energy policies as an even greater threat to the power grid.

Travis Fisher supported new infrastructure to benefit fossil fuels, but not for renewable energy

The 2015 grid study that Fisher wrote for IER also included support for escalating new oil and gas pipelines by overcoming what he described as “permitting delays” at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and at the state level. Many environmentalists :{view FERC as a “rubber stamp”:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: for pipelines, a :{concern that’s:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: :{only increased:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: since President Trump named his nominees to the commission.

Fisher even threw in a pitch for the Keystone XL pipeline, even though :{oil provides less than one percent of U.S. electricity:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:. He claimed that reliance on railroads to move tar sands oil meant that less rail capacity was available to transport coal and other things.

Fisher wrote that use of fossil fuels was limited by a lack of infrastructure, and he was happy to spend other people’s money to fix it. Not so for renewable energy. Fisher argued that the grid should not be updated to integrate more wind and solar power.

“In other words, the incompatibility of wind and solar power on the grid is not a major drawback of the grid,” Fisher said. “Rather, it is a major drawback of these sources of power.”

Fisher encouraged government to engage in the very behavior that he and his “free market” allies in the Koch world routinely disparage: picking winners and losers in the energy market.

Travis Fisher is loyal to fossil fuel interests and powerful political donors

Travis Fisher is t:{he subject of one edition:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: of the John William Pope Foundation’s “:{achiever spotlight:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:,” which highlights “the lives of individuals who have achieved much, thanks in large part to the generosity of nonprofits and organizations supported by the Foundation.”

The foundation is led by Art Pope, a financier of right wing causes who plays an outsized role in North Carolina politics. Among the causes Pope has funded: :{climate denial:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: and :{attacks on clean energy policies:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:.

As a college student at North Carolina State University in 2006, Travis Fisher was enrolled in the school’s program on Economic, Legal, and Political Foundations of Free Economies. a:{**beneficiary of Pope’**:{s largesse:(style="font-weight:inherit"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:. He was also :{:{a:(style="font-weight:inherit"):}:**research intern**:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: at the :{John Locke Foundation:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, which was :{**launched by Pope**:{during the 1990s:(style="font-weight:inherit"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: and has :{received money from the Koch brothers:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, where he worked on “policy alternatives” on issues that included the environment. The group would :{later use Fisher’s work for IER and AEA:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: to support its attacks on North Carolina’s renewable energy standard.

After college, Fisher landed a job as an economist at FERC during the summer of 2006. After 7 years at the commission, he decided to take a job at IER in 2013. Fisher later shared his thinking on energy policy with the John William Pope Foundation.

“It seems conventional wisdom that government should get more involved in energy,” Fisher said in his :{achiever spotlight on JWPF.org:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:. “It’s counter intuitive [sic] to argue that government should get out of energy. But I like the challenge.”

Who paid for Travis Fisher to serve onTrump’s Department of Energy landing team?

A list of landing team members on GreatAgain.gov, the Trump :{transition team’s website:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, disclosed Fisher’s “current or most recent employer” as IER, but did not list AEA – even though Fisher is listed as an  “:{IER economist:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:” and “:{AEA economist” :(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: on the groups’ respective websites. The :{transition team website:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: also listed “funding source: private” for Fisher, while some other landing team members were identified as volunteers. The site did not disclose the private source of Fisher’s funding.

A separate :{financial disclosure filed by Fisher:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: and :{:{published by:(style="font-weight:inherit"):}:**The Intercept**:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: also disclosed his employment by IER, but not AEA. He also disclosed “Employment Assets and Retirement Plans,” which included his IER salary and related 401K, as well as his participation in the “Charles Koch Industries 401K.” In a section below titled, “Filer Employer Agreements and Arrangement,” Fisher disclosed to continue to participate in both 401K plans, but specified that both IER and the “Charles Koch Institute” would no longer make contributions.

A Google search revealed no previous record of Fisher’s employment with the Charles Koch Institute.

Just the latest sign of IER, AEA influence over Trump

It’s no coincidence that, now that Donald Trump is in the White House, some of the same clean energy policies that Fisher targeted for attack in his 2015 grid study for IER are now being rolled back.

As a candidate, Donald Trump was :{one of only two:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: Republicans who :{responded to an AEA questionnaire:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:. In his response to a question about the Clean Power Plan, Trump pledged that “all EPA rules will be reviewed.”  Trump also :{pledged to rescind:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: the Clean Power Plan while in the campaign trail.

During the Trump transition, an IER-AEA memo from the desk of Tom Pyle, which was :{obtained by the Center for Media & Democracy:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, predicted that the Clean Power Plan would be withdrawn by the Trump administration – even if courts upheld the rule.

Pyle, IER and AEA soon got their wish. Trump signed an :{executive order:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: that began the process of reviewing the Clean Power Plan during his first 100 days in the White House. His administration also :{hit the pause button:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}: on the EPA’s legal efforts to defend the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, another target of Fisher’s 2015 IER report, in court.

What’s next?

With Fisher at the helm, the DOE grid study ordered by Rick Perry could serve as a convenient excuse when the Trump administration’s “review” of the Clean Power Plan culminates in a real plan to “:{suspend, revise, or rescind:(style="box-sizing:border-box;border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:” the rule. It could also be used to justify attempts by the Trump administration to preempt state and local clean energy laws, though any such effort would face an uphill battle. Finally, the new DOE grid study could be used to reignite efforts to rollback renewable energy standards and net metering incentives at the state level. 

In any case, clean energy supporters will have no shortage of evidence at the ready to debunk any erroneous claims made by Fisher, and make the case that renewable energy is affordable, reliable, and benefits our economy and the environment

:{Posted by Dave Anderson:(style="font-style:inherit"):}:

==

another kind of watershed?

https://theconversation.com/puerto-rico-has-a-once-in-a-lifetime-chance-to-build-a-clean-energy-grid-but-fema-plans-to-spend-9-4-billion-on-fossil-fuel-infrastructure-instead-169124

Climate deniers are going all in with disinfo for COP26 (Sorry, Teslas really do produce fewer emissions)

As the world gears up for the COP26 climate negotiations in Glasgow next week, deniers are already laying the groundwork for the disinformation they’ll peddle in a hopefully-vain attempt to recreate their success in using Climategate disinformation to disrupt the Copenhagen COP.

While every year brings a new and exciting display of denial, a few recent stories stand out as top candidates for the fossil fueled opposition to latch onto when confronted with the possibility that letting polluters profit our planet to death is a bad idea.By Climate Denier Roundup

Though we can expect some totally-unhinged and _{unsubstantiated claims about banning beef,}_ one of the biggest recurring arguments is also one of the most misleading, that the Texas blackouts offer a warning of what climate policies will make common.

For example, Sean Spicer, who hasn’t quite danced his Trump-stained reputation clean yet, has a new book out, and theKoch-funded RealClear _{ran an excerpt}_. It opens with a heart-tugging story about a 12 year old who died of hypothermia, and then quickly exploits the child’s death to score cheap, and completely false, political points.The 80+ deaths “were caused by political decisions,” Spicer writes, and “the tragedy of the Texas blackout was partially the result of the growth of the green energy industry.”

But the majority of the _{responsibility for the blackouts}_ can be laid at the fossil fuel industry’s failure to do the one thing it claims it does best: Be reliable....

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/why-blackwater-helping-train-brazils-world-cup-security/

no lnx

In news as shocking as it was unreported in the United States, the Brazilian press revealed earlier this week that Academi—the rebranded private militia once known as Blackwater—has been providing security training for the 2014 World Cup.The notorious company, responsible for the 2011 Nisour Square massacre in Iraq, has been training Brazilian security forces in North Carolina.

Hosting mega-events comes with astronomical costs. This summer’s World Cup in Brazil is the most expensive ever, with a tab so far of $11 billion to $13 billion. These costs promise to catapult even higher as unfinished projects linger long after the soccer fans have returned home, with some estimating the final price tag to crest at $15 billion. In addition to being the most expensive, the World Cup organizers plan to deploy more force than any previous tournament. More than 170,000 security personnel from the military, police and secret service will be on hand, 22 percent more than worked the previous World Cup in South Africa. Now we know that some of these forces will be trained by a private security firm with a dodgy history.

In Rio, the “pacification” of favelas is already hurtling ahead full throttle. Amnesty International described the Pacifying Police Unit’s recent incursion into the Maré complex of favelas as “a military occupation.” The suspicious disappearance of a young man named Amarildo Dias de Souza from his home favela of Rocinha sparked a public outburst and media-led investigation that spurred criminal charges against the neighborhood’s commanding officer and his minions. The security officials sit in prison awaiting trial, accused of torturing De Souza to death and discarding his corpse in the jungle. Not surprisingly, a recent national poll found that less than a quarter of Brazilians trust the police.

The conflation of terrorism and activism is also rampant. Lawmakers in Brazil are angling to use the state of exception that sports mega-events inevitably bring to pass drastic legislation. The Brazilian Congress is contemplating an antiterrorism bill that would impose hefty sentences—fifteen to thirty years in prison—for “causing or inciting widespread terror by threatening or trying to threaten the life, the physical integrity or the health or liberty of a person.” Human-rights groups have clamored that such proposals are overly broad and could be used to squelch all kinds of protest and actions during the World Cup.

For security mavens, Academi’s involvement training Brazilians at its company headquarters in North Carolina may come as no great surprise. After all, Wikileaks revealed in a 2009 cable from the US Embassy in Brasilia that the US government views the crises brought on by hosting sports mega-events as prime occasions to cash in.

After power outages rippled across Brazil in 2009, the US Mission wrote, “The newly heightened concerns about Brazil’s infrastructure as a result of this blackout, combined with the need to address infrastructure challenges in the run-up to the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics, present the United States opportunities for engagement on infrastructure development as well critical infrastructure protection and possibly cyber security.” In short, Brazil’s misery created room for opportunism.

The cable encouraged US government agencies like the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security “to explore these opportunities in the near-term.” With Academi’s involvement in Brazil, this type of “opportunity” is taking shape.

The indomitable critic Eduardo Galeano recently said of FIFA, the world’s governing body for football, “There are visible and invisible dictators. The power structure of world football is monarchical. It’s the most secret kingdom in the world.” People across Brazil concur—disgruntlement with Fifa’s arrogance and opacity is widespread. Earlier this month, a poll found, quite remarkably, that in the football-crazy country of Brazil only 48 percent of the population favors hosting this summer’s World Cup, plummeting from 78 percent support in 2008. Meanwhile, 41 percent actively oppose it, up from only 10 percent. Last summer, the 2013 Confederations Cup provided a prime-time dress rehearsal for principled dissent. Almost everyone expects cross-country protests at this summer’s Copa do Mundo.

Under intense public pressure, Rio Mayor Eduardo Paes recently remarked, “We’re not going to build a Bird’s Nest [Stadium] in Rio de Janeiro. If you go to Beijing today, the Bird’s Nest has become a mausoleum to honor wasted public money. We are not going to do this here.” The mayor was right about the perils of white elephants. But another threat lingers: the intensified militarization of public space in the name of protecting the sports spectacle. Now it looks like private security firms like Academi are in on the deal, and that’s unsettling for anyone not under the spell of historical amnesia.