webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

mcnamee, bernard

==

SEE PJT 2025

see pendejo

SEE TPPF KEVIN ROBERTS

CRUZ

---

e and e

no lnx

Meet the ex-Trump officials who helped draft Project 2025

:{By Robin Bravender | 07/11/2024 :

Former President Donald Trump says he has “no idea” who’s behind the Project 2025 policy blueprint. The authors include his senior energy and environmental appointees.

Then-President Donald Trump speaks at the Heritage Foundation's annual President's Club meeting.

Then-President Donald Trump speaks at the Heritage Foundation's annual President's Club meeting Oct. 17, 2017, in Washington. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

Former President Donald Trump says he knows “nothing about” a conservative policy blueprint and has “no idea who is behind it.”

But the authors include Trump’s former Cabinet secretaries, top White House officials and senior aides — including former Trump appointees to EPA, the Interior Department and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Trump’s efforts to distance himself from Project 2025, a policy blueprint organized by the conservative Heritage Foundation, come as Democrats are seizing on pieces of the framework to attack Trump on policy and as the Biden campaign aims to shift focus away from questions about his age and mental acuity following the presidential debate.

Email blasts from the Biden campaign in recent days have been titled, “Project 2025: Trump’s Extreme and Dangerous BFFs;” “Donald Trump Takes His Project 2025 Abortion-Banning Agenda to Florida;” and “Trump’s Project 2025: Gutting the National Weather Service (Bad!).”

Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday slammed the project as she tied it to the former president. “Trump advisers have created a 900-page blueprint of their agenda for the second term. They call it Project 2025,” Harris said. “Let us be clear, this represents an outright attack on our children, our families and our future.”

Stephen Moore, an adviser to the Trump campaign who co-authored the Project 2025 framework, said the policy guide has been misunderstood.

“It’s not meant to be a blueprint for Donald Trump — it’s meant to be a blueprint for a conservative president,” Moore said.

“We wrote this as our dream scenario,” Moore said of the authors, a list that includes former Trump Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson and former Trump White House aide Peter Navarro, who’s serving in federal prison after he was convicted of contempt of Congress.

“I assume some of the ideas Trump would reject and some he would adopt,” Moore said.

Three co-authors who laid out visions for overhauling energy and environmental agencies were high-ranking officials under Trump.

:

Mandy Gunasekara answers questions in Hinds County Circuit Court on March 22, 2023, in Jackson, Mississippi. | Rogelio V. Solis/AP

Gunasekara was chief of staff at Trump’s EPA before she penned the Project 2025 vision for downsizing that agency and overhauling President Joe Biden regulations.

EPA, she wrote, has “long been amenable to being coopted by the Left for political ends against the need to implement the agency’s true function: protecting public health and the environment in cooperation with states.”

She encouraged a realignment of the agency “away from attempts to make it an all-powerful energy and land use policymaker and returned to its congressionally sanctioned role as environmental regulator.”

Among other things, the blueprint recommends eliminating the stand-alone Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, developing a plan to relocate EPA’s regional offices “so that they are more accessible to the areas they serve,” and resetting science advisory boards.

Gunasekara urges EPA to identify existing regulations to be halted and reproposed, to stop and review grants slated for advocacy groups, and to reduce the number of full-time positions within the agency.

As for Trump’s comments distancing himself from the policy guide, Trump “is right,” Gunasekara said Wednesday.

“The project is the work of Heritage and many other conservative nonprofits,” she said. The policies “are designed for the next conservative administration to consider and provide strategic thought on how to achieve them. What is ultimately pursued is the prerogative of the president.”

William Perry Pendley

:

:{

Former Trump Interior official Perry Pendley wrote in the Project 2025 blueprint that the next Republican president should slash the footprint of national monuments and move to bar future presidents from wielding executive power to protect federal lands.

He called the Biden Interior Department “at war with the department’s mission” when it comes to fossil fuel extraction and urges a conservative president to pursue the “restoration of the department’s historic role managing the nation’s vast storehouse of hydrocarbons, much of which is yet to be discovered.”

Perry Pendley led the Bureau of Land Management under Trump, although he was never confirmed by the Senate and a judge ruled that he had unlawfully served in that job.

A new administration must “immediately roll back Biden’s orders,” reinstate “the Trump-era Energy Dominance Agenda” and put a series of Trump-era secretarial orders back into place, he wrote in Project 2025.

“We’ll see what happens after the election and what the president chooses to do,” Perry Pendley said Wednesday.

“I think we got some commonsense recommendations in there, certainly consistent with what [Trump] did during his first term,” he said. “Given the comments that [Trump] has made with regard to energy independence and developing our energy resources, I think once the president takes a look at what I prepared for the Interior Department that he’ll embrace it, but we’ll see.”

Bernard McNamee

Former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission member Bernard McNamee.

McNamee, a Trump pick for FERC, urged the next administration to repeal Biden’s climate and infrastructure laws and to boost domestic energy production.

“DOE, instead of focusing on core energy and security issues, has been spending billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize renewable energy developers and investors, thereby making Americans less energy secure and distorting energy markets,” McNamee wrote in the Project 2025 energy section he authored.

McNamee, who also served in the Energy Department during Trump’s presidency, wrote that the next administration should “eliminate political and climate-change interference in DOE approvals of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports” and “stop using energy policy to advance politicized social agendas.”

The next president should also support the repeal of “massive spending bills,” such as Biden’s signature infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, and “support the rescinding of all funds not already spent by these programs,” McNamee wrote.

McNamee did not respond to a request to comment for this story.

---

[FERC’s McNamee not seeking 2nd term as commissioner Commissioner Bernard McNamee will step down from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Sept. 4, he announced Wednesday, leaving FERC with three...

.

Jan 24, 2020](https://www.utilitydive.com/news/fercs-mcnamee-not-seeking-2nd-term-as-commissioner/571009/)

[

The Equation - Union of Concerned Scientists

Three Reasons Bernard McNamee is a Horrible Choice for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Bernard McNamee has been a key player in the Trump Administration's unsuccessful attempts to bailout the coal industry. Now McNamee's been...

.

Oct 10, 2018](https://blog.ucsusa.org/sam-gomberg/three-reasons-bernard-mcnamee-is-a-bad-choice/)

[

The Federalist Society

Bernard L. McNamee

Bernard L. McNamee is a former FERC commissioner and currently a partner at McGuireWoods LLP and a senior advisor at McGuireWoods Consulting.

.

Jun 3, 2022](https://fedsoc.org/contributors/bernard-mcnamee-2)

[

Hart Energy](https://www.hartenergy.com/exclusives/former-ferc-commissioner-bernard-mcnamee-joins-mcguirewoods-energy-team-191253)

[[===

https://www.democracynow.org/2023/7/28/global_heat_climate_crisis_july_2023

...

DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Well, I mean, the short answer is, to limit all of these impacts, we need to reduce carbon emissions very rapidly. And while we have had an incredibly impressive renewable rollout over the last couple of years, all of the graphs are pointing way up. The next decade looks much more promising for renewable energy than most advocates even believed was possible just a few years ago. Nevertheless, they’ve barely dented, if they’ve dented at all, the emissions that we’re producing from fossil fuel generation. So we haven’t actually reduced the share of global power production that comes from fossil fuels from this remarkable renewable rollout. We’re just using those renewables to add to our power capacity.

And that’s really, you know, the change that we need to make. We need to be producing so much renewables now that we can actually draw down fossil fuels, and draw them down relatively rapidly, rather than simply using them to supplement our consumption patterns and power production. And unfortunately, we haven’t really seen a sign of that. At best, it looks like we’re going to be looking at sort of a plateau for emissions over the rest of this decade. And we know from all of the scientific warnings that that’s simply inadequate if we have any hope of meeting some of our more ambitious climate targets.

AMY GOODMAN: In a moment, David, I want to ask you about what would be the most effective legislation in the United States to deal with climate change. But, Dharna Noor, I wanted to first go to your piece. If you can explain what Project 2025 is and what you found in your investigation?

DHARNA NOOR: Absolutely. So, Project 2025 is, essentially, a group of dozens of right-wing organizations. We’re talking about think tanks, publications and the like. And it was convened by the Heritage Foundation, which is, I think, in the climate world, very well known for promoting climate denial for decades, and for even longer promoting this sort of anti-regulatory stance. So, these groups came together in an attempt, essentially, to advise whoever the next president is, if that person is a Republican, so any Republican who takes office in next year’s presidential election.

This is the second time that the Heritage Foundation has led the creation of a sort of transition plan aimed at a Republican president. In the early ’80s, we saw the Heritage Foundation create one of these plans, that actually went on to have a huge influence on the Reagan administration and was framed as a sort of way of taking on the out-of-control regulatory state.

And in this particular iteration, there’s a lot of focus in their new transition plan on unmaking environmental regulations. I’m happy to talk more about this, but there’s a number of previous Trump appointees who have written, essentially, proposals to undo the many powers of the federal administration, from the EPA to the Department of the Interior, all in an attempt to sort of lessen the federal authority to regulate fossil fuels and, essentially, to boost those polluting industries.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, it’s interesting. Polls show now that Biden and Trump, even though he was indicted again yesterday, are neck and neck in the polls for president. You talk about the Department of the Interior part of the plan, in this 2025 plan, being written byWilliam Perry Pendley.You note he controversially led the Bureau of Land Management under President Trump and worked to eliminate drilling regulations. Talk more specifically, and name names.

DHARNA NOOR: Absolutely. So, as you mentioned, William Perry Pendley very controversially led the Bureau of Land Management under President Trump, controversially because he was actually never confirmed by the Senate. This was the case for a number of Trump appointees. And he also was known, before he had a role in the Trump administration, for writing this book called Sagebrush Rebel, that was really in praise of Ronald Reagan, of Ronald Reagan’s anti-regulatory sort of agenda. It’s, I think, unsurprising to see his name in a sort of proposal that’s aimed at, you know, ending the ability for federal regulations to have any real impact on the environment.

Previous reporting from E&E News, from Scott Waldman there, found that Mandy Gunasekara had written another chapter focused on remaking theEPA, really focused on shrinking its authority both by laying off staff, by cutting budgets, with an especially big focus on sort of cutting environmental programs, like environmental justice programming and public outreach programming.

Another name that was in the proposal was Bernard McNamee, who wrote a chapter on the Department of Energy, again sort of in an attempt to say we should shrink the authority of the Department of Energy. He previously served as an adviser to Ted Cruz. And before that, he led this far-right organization called the Texas Public Policy Institute — or,Texas Public Policy Foundation, rather, that really aims to undo environmental regulation and fight renewable energy at the state level.

And so, we’re really seeing, I think, a who’s who of the far right in this attempt to, you know, not only sort of be in the next president’s ear if they’re a Republican, but also, you know, sort of recommend personnel and say, “Hey, here’s who you should staff up with.”

AMY GOODMAN: What role does billionaire Charles Koch play in this project, Dharna?

DHARNA NOOR: So, the Heritage Foundation, who, again, are the far-right foundation that sort of convened this group, Project 2025, has historically had ties, financial ties, to the Koch brothers, who are, of course, billionaires who made their fortune in fossil fuels and related industries. The Heritage Foundation is also a member of the State Policy Network, which is a sort of coalition of these extreme right-wing groups that have targeted regulation, especially climate-focused regulation, in states for many years. And I think, you know, I would just say, I guess, it’s no surprise that an organization with ties to people who have made such a great fortune in the industries that must be regulated in order to take on the climate crisis, you know, have historically been tied to a group that is trying to push that agenda to the presidential level.

AMY GOODMAN: As we begin to wrap up, I wanted to ask David Wallace-Wells to respond to what Dharna is describing right now, and also talk about what needs exactly to be done. I mean, we’re speaking today, the day after the Supreme Court has just OK’d, cleared the way for construction of the contested Mountain Valley Pipeline to resume, lifting a halt on a section of the project that had been issued by a lower court earlier this month after a challenge by environmental groups.

...

--

ref

GUK

https://yyytheguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/27/project-2025-dismantle-us-climate-policy-next-republican-president

‘Project 2025’: plan to dismantle US climate policy for next Republican president

Rightwing groups penned a conservative wish list of proposals for the next conservative Dharna Noor

Thu 27 Jul 2023 

An alliance of rightwing groups has crafted an extensive presidential proposal to bolster the planet-heating oil and gas industry and hamstring the energy transition, it has emerged.

Against a backdrop of record-breaking heat and floods this year, the $22m endeavor, Project 2025, was convened by the notorious rightwing, climate-denying thinktank the Heritage Foundation, which has ties to fossil fuel billionaire Charles Koch.

[A burned-out car against a background of charred trees and hills

Deadly global heatwaves undeniably result of climate crisis, scientists show

Read more]

Called the Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, it is meant to guide the first 180 days of presidency for an incoming Republican president. Climate experts and advocates criticized planning that would dismantle US climate policy.

The nearly 1,000-page transition guide was written by more than 350 rightwingers and is full of sweeping recommendations to deconstruct all sectors of the federal government– – including environmental policy.

“Heritage is convening the conservative movement behind the policies to ensure that the next president has the right policy and personnel necessary to dismantle the administrative state and restore self-governance to the American people,” the foundation’s president, Kevin Roberts, said in an April statement.

The guide’s chapter on the US Department of Energy proposes eliminating three agency offices that are crucial for the energy transition, and also calls to slash funding to the agency’s grid deployment office in an effort to stymie renewable energy deployment, E&E News reported this week.

The plan, which would hugelyexpand gas infrastructure,was authored byBernard McNamee, a former official at the agency. McNamee was also a Trump appointee to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. He previously led the far-right Texas Public Policy Foundation, which fights environmental regulation, and served as a senior adviser to the Republican senator Ted Cruz.

Another chapter focuses on gutting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and moving it away from its focus on the climate crisis. It proposes cutting the agency’s environmental justice and public engagement functions, while shrinking it as a whole by terminating new hires in “low-value programs”, E&E News reported. The proposal was written Mandy Gunasekara, who was the former chief of staff at the EPA under Trump.

The guide also features a chapter on the Department of the Interior written by William Perry Pendley, who controversially led the Bureau of Land Management under President Trump and worked to eliminate drilling regulations.

[Republicans in Congress continue to show they will stop at nothing to undermine environmental protections

David Shadburn of the League of Conservation Voters]

Before his time in the Trump administration, Pendley headed the Mountain States Legal Foundation, a conservative law firm where he advocated for selling off public lands. He also authored a book, Sagebrush Rebel, praising Reagan’s anti-regulatory policies.

“He did a bunch of terrible things,” saidKert Davies, director of special investigations at the Center for Climate Integrity, about Pendley’s time at the Department of the Interior. “He worked to dismantle [the Bureau of Land Management] while he was in it.”

The Heritage Foundation has enjoyed a longstanding influence in GOP politics, even helping Ronald Reagan win the presidency, authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway detail in their 2023 book, The Big Myth. Many of Reagan’s policy proposals were cribbed from the pages of the thinktank’s first Mandate for Leadership, published in 1980, which asserted that the US was in the middle of a “crisis of overregulation”.

“It doesn’t trouble me that any individual or institution would develop advisory plans for politicians. What troubles me is the Heritage Foundation’s long history … of working to undermine environmental protection at the expense of health and wellbeing of the American people, at the expense of life on Earth,” said Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard.

[Protesters in October 2021 demanding that the Biden administration to do more to curb climate change and ban fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, House GOP members are also continuing to attack federal climate funding in their spending bill proposals, putting governmental functions at risk.

Earlier this month, the Clean Budget Coalition– – composed of more than 250 advocacy groups – warned that Republican representatives were slipping restrictions on climate spending into the government’s annual spending bills, bills that must be passed before current funding expires on 30 September to avoid a government shutdown. This week, the coalition found that House Republicans had added additional “poison pills” to spending bills, including ones that target environmental funding.

The spending bills are currently in the House appropriations committee, which is chaired by theTexas Republican Kay Granger, who is a top recipient of campaign funding from the oil and gas industry, the Lever reported this week. They will go to a full vote in the House, and then the finalized proposals will move into negotiations with the Senate. If Biden vetoes them, a government shutdown could be on the way.

“Republicans in Congress continue to show they will stop at nothing to undermine environmental protections and attack anything that would help addressing the climate crisis,” said David Shadburn, a senior government affairs advocate at the League of Conservation Voters.

Some of the provisions would hamstring the EPA’s powers, blocking the agency from enforcing new pollution limits on power plants and tailpipe emissions or from implementing controls on mercury and other toxic air pollution, and effectively shuttering a critical program for deploying carbon-free energy.

“House appropriations Republicans are abusing the appropriations process to impose a cycle of environmental injustice,” said Deanna Noël, climate campaigns director for the consumer advocacy nonprofit Public Citizen.

Other “poison pills” would prohibit listing the dunes sagebrush lizard under the Endangered Species Act, remove protections for the greater Yellowstone ecosystem’s population of grizzly bears, and bar the Department of the Interior from creating a working group to help restore bison populations. Still others wouldrequire the energy secretary to sell 1m barrels of refined petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and block the implementation of a rule forcing federal defense contractors to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and create emission reductions plans.

These disgraceful poison pill riders are nothing short of corporate giveaways to the corrupt fossil fuel industry

Deanna Noël of Public Citizen

Every GOP representative can submit proposals to the House appropriations committee, and since no member is required to sign off on specific proposals, it is not clear who exactly is responsible for each “poison pill”. But as the Lever reported, many Republican representatives who have effectively championed the provisions are recipients of funding from polluting industries.

For instance, a proposal to halt climate-related fisheries research funding was written by a subcommittee led by Representative Hal Rogers of Kentucky, whose top campaign contributors include mining and fossil fuel interests. Another proposal would bar funding for theUN’s Green Climate Fund; it was buried in a bill being overseen by major energy funding recipient Representative Mario Díaz-Balartof Florida, the Lever reported.

“These disgraceful poison pill riders are nothing short of corporate giveaways to the corrupt fossil fuel industry,” said Noël.

The proposals come as waters off the Florida coast reach levels of heat more commonly found in hot tubs, and as much of the nation continues to swelter under triple-digit temperatures. 

Two coal companies just became even more influential over the Trump administration.

A new report reveals that Murray Energy andAlliance Resource Partners successfully lobbied to have a conservative nominee to the government’s energy regulator thrown out — simply because he opposed a plan to force taxpayers to bail out money-losing coal plants.

As Politico reported, thetwo coal companies — owned by two major Republican donors and Trump allies, Bob Murray and Joe Craft — teamed up with Energy Secretary Rick Perry to pressure the White House to drop the nomination of David Hill to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Hill had served as the Energy Department’s general counsel under President George W. Bush.

What was Hill’s undoing? He had previously said that Perry’s costly plan to raise consumer energy bills in order to subsidize uneconomic coal plants was “absolutely not the solution."

Last January, FERC unanimously rejected the coal bailout proposal.

Rick Perry’s plan to make taxpayers bail out coal and nuclear rejected by federal agency

Since then, Perry and Big Coal have been working overtime to stack FERC, which oversees the U.S. grid and regulates interstate electricity transmission, with cronies who will force Americans to buy costly coal and nuclear power. This vision would amount to a multi-billion dollar taxpayer bailout at the expense of cheaper renewable sources and natural gas.

The revelation also serves to further cement the relationship between the coal industry and the Trump administration. Not only has President Donald Trump tapped Craft’s wife as the next U.N. ambassador but under former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt, Craft often met with the agency and he even gave Pruitt basketball tickets. Pruitt is reportedly now consulting for Craft’s coal company.

Meanwhile, Murray is well-known for his wish list of policy demands delivered during Trump’s first year in office; current EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler also used to lobby on behalf of Murray Energy.

All of this is to say that we now have the staggering hypocrisy of a Republican administration seeking to force American ratepayers to pay billions of dollars a year more in energy bills to prop up dirty energy — even as Trump and GOP leaders have been characterizing Democratic efforts to speed up clean energy deployment to save a livable climate as “socialism.”

Wyoming’s coal plants are so unprofitable Republicans turned to a ‘socialist program’ to save them

Indeed, when FERC killed Perry’s plan last year, they explained it would be unduly discriminatory against cheaper renewable energy sources. As Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur explained at the time in a concurring opinion, subsidizing the electricity dinosaurs was not FERC’s job: “I believe the Commission should continue to focus its efforts not on slowing the transition from the past but on easing the transition to the future.”

But in the past year, Big Coal has already succeeded in replacing one anti-bailout FERC commissioner, Robert Powelson, with a pro-coal crony, Bernard McNamee. 

Former FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre’s untimely death in January means Perry and the coal industry will have a second pro-bailout commissioner if they can keep thwarting candidates who are more supportive of the cheap, clean energy of the future rather than the costly, dirty energy sources of the past. Those in favor of forcing taxpayers to prop up the coal industry would need only one more vote on FERC to pass Perry’s plan.

So it still remains possible that the Trump administration will be able to achieve its dream of a centrally-planned economy where consumers are forced to pay billions to keep coal plants running and spewing their toxic and climate-destroying pollution.

ref

https://thinkprogress.org/ferc-rejects-rick-perry-coal-bailout-7d361281760d/

https://www.ecowatch.com/mcnamee-climate-denier-ferc-2622689454.html

many lnx

'Conceivably the Worst': Groups, Lawmakers Blast Confirmation of Climate Denier to FERC

Bernard McNamee, a climate change denier who helped write the Trump administration's failed coal and nuclear bailout plan, was confirmed Thursday as a commissioner on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

:{

}:

The Senate approved the nominee on a straight party-line vote of 50-49 after Sen. JoeManchin, the pro-coal Democrat of West Virginia, withdrew his support due to his concerns about McNamee's stance on climate change.

President Trump's nomination of the fossil fuel lawyer as one of the FERC's five commissioners was strongly opposed by environmentalists, public health groups and elected leaders.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Committee on Environment, noted McNamee's deep ties to the Koch brothers and called his appointment "conceivably the worst" out of Trump's energy appointments.

:{

}:

In a February video posted by Utility Dive, McNamee criticized renewable energy and environmental groups, called carbon dioxide "not a real pollutant" and described fossil fuels as "key to our way of life." He was speaking for the Koch-funded Texas Public Policy Foundation where he worked at the time.

Also during his speech, he said he told his son to "just deny" climate science in school. "I don't care if you get an 'F,'" he said.

As the executive director of the Office of Policy with the Department of Energy, McNamee was the architect of Energy Secretary Rick Perry's $34 billion coal and nuclear bailout proposal that was unanimously rejected by FERC last January. He has hesitated to recuse himself on issues related to the coal bailout scheme he engineered, the Sierra Club noted.

"At a time when consumers, businesses and forward-thinking utilities are embracing the clean energy revolution, we don't need a FERC commissioner who endorses the Trump administration's schemes to keep the dying coal and nuclear industries on life support," Kenneth Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, said in a press release sent to EcoWatch.

FERC has historically been an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas and oil but has moved more partisan thanks to Trump. McNamee, who will fill a seat vacated by Robert Powelson, has boosted FERC's partisan split to 3-2 in favor of Republicans.

"The Senate's reckless decision to place Bernard 'Coal Bailout' McNamee on FERC is a major threat to the Commission's independence and integrity," said Mary Anne Hitt, senior director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign in a press release. "From this day forward we will do everything we can to guarantee that he follows the law, treats clean energy sources fairly, and recuses himself from all matters pertaining to his failed coal bailout scheme. It's essential that we have a fair and lawful FERC moving forward."

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had only nice words to say about McNamee.

"This is an impressive nominee who has the right qualifications for this important job," said McConnell prior to a preliminary vote Wednesday, according to Natural Gas Intel. "In his career as a well-regarded lawyer on energy issues, he's represented clients and gained expertise all across the energy sector."

Industry groups also applauded McNamee's confirmation.

"He brings a wealth of legal and energy policy experience to the Commission, along with an appreciation of the benefits of competitive markets," said Natural Gas Supply AssociationCEO Dena Wiggins, according to Natural Gas Intel. "It's important for FERC's work to continue and that works best with a commissioner in every seat."

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Bob Murray drafted 6 orders on coal, climate for Trump ›

3 Reasons Bernard McNamee Is a Horrible Choice for FERC ›

Victims of Hurricane Michael are represented by climate deniers ... ›

There's No Power Grid Emergency Requiring a Coal Bailout ... ›

==

https://www.ecowatch.com/bernard-mcnamee-ferc-ucs-2611676185.html

3 Reasons Bernard McNamee Is a Horrible Choice for FERC

By Sam Gomberg

President Trump's nomination of Bernard McNamee to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) may not grab a lot of headlines but make no mistake—it's a blatant (and oft repeated) move by the Trump administration to pollute an independent regulatory body with political operatives intent on carrying out his crony capitalism. A hearing to consider McNamee's nomination is already set for Tuesday, October 16th—a clear sign that Trump's political allies are trying to ram through his appointment without thoughtful consideration. But here's three reasons McNamee is a horrible choice to be a FERC commissioner and why his potential confirmation should worry all of us.

But first, what is "FERC"?

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission – or "FERC" – is an independent federal regulatory body that is organized as part of the Department of Energy and that oversees much of our modern energy infrastructure. From pipelines, to hydroelectric dams, to our interstate transmission system and wholesale electricity markets, FERC is tasked with ensuring "reliable, efficient and sustainable energy services at a reasonable cost". To put it simply: FERC's decisions impact our wallets, our environment, and our climate.

Now that we understand why it's important who our next FERC commissioner is, here are three reasons why Bernard McNamee is the wrong man for the job:

1. McNamee has serious conflicts of interest.

President Trump and the Department of Energy led by Rick Perry have been trying to bailout their buddies in the coal industry since they got to D.C. In his positions with the DOE, McNamee helped craft a previous proposal to provide subsidies to uneconomic coal plants. That proposal was unanimously rejected by FERC in January. We also know that DOE is still working to find the legal authority to order subsidies – with cost estimates of $34 billion or more – be paid to these same plants.

McNamee almost certainly had a role in crafting this latest proposal that is opposed by nearly everyone except the coal industry. To date he has not divulged exactly what role he's played, who he's worked with, or what communications he's had with FERC about the upcoming proposal. Working to craft a bailout proposal for the coal industry would create a serious conflict of interest if he were to then be appointed to FERC that would ultimately vote on the proposal.

Imagine if you were accused of a crime and, once the prosecutor had made his closing arguments, he was appointed to be the judge in your case. That is akin to what we're now facing with McNamee's potential appointment to FERC. Free and fair electricity markets, low-cost electricity, and our clean energy future are at stake.

  1. He's horribly unqualified.

Bernard McNamee has no experience in the utility or natural gas utility industries and has no experience as a regulator of these industries. He was appointed to the Department of Energy (DOE) by President Trump, and before that worked for a conservative think tank in Texas and was an advisor to Senator Ted Cruz and the Texas Attorney General.

3. He would destroy FERC's standing as an independent regulatory body.

FERC has a long history of steering clear of the political fray, particularly in its responsibility to protect free and fair energy markets. In fact, FERC is specifically designed to be independent from political influence so that it can remain objective. To protect against undue influence at the Commission, no more than three of the five commissioners can be from the same political party, FERC is not funded by taxpayer dollars (and therefore not subject to appropriations battles), and FERC decisions are not reviewed in advance by the President or Congress.

This independence has already been thrown into question by FERC's chief of staff, Anthony Pugliese – another unqualified political operative inserted at FERC by President Trump. The appointment of McNamee to be a FERC commissioner would double down on Trump's efforts to make FERC a pawn to his political agenda. Everyone should be concerned about the erosion of independent decision making and the precedent that would set.

Before any hearing is scheduled on his nomination, a full accounting of his activities since joining the DOE, including his communications with the coal industry and his role in the ongoing effort to bailout uneconomic coal plants, should be made public. Then it's up to the Senate to ask serious questions about how he plans to fulfill his duties at FERC given his lack of qualification and his apparent conflicts of interest. If we can't get acceptable answers to these questions, then it's painfully clear that McNamee has no place at FERC.

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

One of the Most Important Agencies You've Never Heard of Is Being ... ›

UCS: Independent Science, Practical Solutions | Union of ... ›

3 Reasons Bernard McNamee Is a Horrible Choice for FERC

By Sam Gomberg

President Trump's nomination of Bernard McNamee to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) may not grab a lot of headlines but make no mistake—it's a blatant (and oft repeated) move by the Trump administration to pollute an independent regulatory body with political operatives intent on carrying out his crony capitalism. A hearing to consider McNamee's nomination is already set for Tuesday, October 16th—a clear sign that Trump's political allies are trying to ram through his appointment without thoughtful consideration. But here's three reasons McNamee is a horrible choice to be a FERC commissioner and why his potential confirmation should worry all of us.

But first, what is "FERC"?

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission – or "FERC" – is an independent federal regulatory body that is organized as part of the Department of Energy and that oversees much of our modern energy infrastructure. From pipelines, to hydroelectric dams, to our interstate transmission system and wholesale electricity markets, FERC is tasked with ensuring "reliable, efficient and sustainable energy services at a reasonable cost". To put it simply: FERC's decisions impact our wallets, our environment, and our climate.

Now that we understand why it's important who our next FERC commissioner is, here are three reasons why Bernard McNamee is the wrong man for the job:

1. McNamee has serious conflicts of interest.

President Trump and the Department of Energy led by Rick Perry have been trying to bailout their buddies in the coal industry since they got to D.C. In his positions with the DOE, McNamee helped craft a previous proposal to provide subsidies to uneconomic coal plants. That proposal was unanimously rejected by FERC in January. We also know that DOE is still working to find the legal authority to order subsidies – with cost estimates of $34 billion or more – be paid to these same plants.

McNamee almost certainly had a role in crafting this latest proposal that is opposed by nearly everyone except the coal industry. To date he has not divulged exactly what role he's played, who he's worked with, or what communications he's had with FERC about the upcoming proposal. Working to craft a bailout proposal for the coal industry would create a serious conflict of interest if he were to then be appointed to FERC that would ultimately vote on the proposal.

Imagine if you were accused of a crime and, once the prosecutor had made his closing arguments, he was appointed to be the judge in your case. That is akin to what we're now facing with McNamee's potential appointment to FERC. Free and fair electricity markets, low-cost electricity, and our clean energy future are at stake.

2. He's horribly unqualified.

Bernard McNamee has no experience in the utility or natural gas utility industries and has no experience as a regulator of these industries. He was appointed to the Department of Energy (DOE) by President Trump, and before that worked for a conservative think tank in Texas and was an advisor to Senator Ted Cruz and the Texas Attorney General.

3. He would destroy FERC's standing as an independent regulatory body.

FERC has a long history of steering clear of the political fray, particularly in its responsibility to protect free and fair energy markets. In fact, FERC is specifically designed to be independent from political influence so that it can remain objective. To protect against undue influence at the Commission, no more than three of the five commissioners can be from the same political party, FERC is not funded by taxpayer dollars (and therefore not subject to appropriations battles), and FERC decisions are not reviewed in advance by the President or Congress.

This independence has already been thrown into question by FERC's chief of staff, Anthony Pugliese – another unqualified political operative inserted at FERC by President Trump. The appointment of McNamee to be a FERC commissioner would double down on Trump's efforts to make FERC a pawn to his political agenda. Everyone should be concerned about the erosion of independent decision making and the precedent that would set.

Before any hearing is scheduled on his nomination, a full accounting of his activities since joining the DOE, including his communications with the coal industry and his role in the ongoing effort to bailout uneconomic coal plants, should be made public. Then it's up to the Senate to ask serious questions about how he plans to fulfill his duties at FERC given his lack of qualification and his apparent conflicts of interest. If we can't get acceptable answers to these questions, then it's painfully clear that McNamee has no place at FERC.

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

ref

One of the Most Important Agencies You've Never Heard of Is Being Taken Over by Trump

By Kim Smaczniak

Most Americans probably don't know that an independent—and up to now nonpartisan—government agency has played a key role in our nation's transition to cleaner energy technologies. Under the radar and hidden beneath a layer of technical jargon, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has shepherded changes to electricity market rules that have gradually allowed the superior economics of clean energy technologies to out-compete clunky, old fossil fueled power plants. And it has done this for decades, under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Now the Trump administration is poised to tip FERC's balance by appointing a fossil fuel advocate as one of five commissioners—putting all that bipartisan clean energy progress under threat. However, because few people have heard of the important work done by this small, technocratic agency, this potential appointment could move forward without much opposition. This has to change. A healthy, livable climate depends on it.

Bernard McNamee is the Trump administration's pick to fill Robert Powelson's recently vacated seat on FERC. McNamee currently leads the Office of Policy at the Department of Energy, where he helped to roll out Energy Sec. Rick Perry's failed attempt to bail out the coal and nuclear industries.

His resume reads like a who's who in the fossil fuel industry and the far-right political crowd.

McNamee has deep ties to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the Koch-funded organization that has provided a pipeline of Trump nominees, including the former nominee to the Council For Environmental Quality that even Republicans agreed was unqualified for the job. It was there that McNamee spearheaded "Life: Powered," a project launched by the group in 2015 "to combat the Obama-era Clean Power Plan," according to TPPF's 2017 annual report. He also served as a senior advisor and counsel to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). This past Earth Day, he authored a love letter to fossil fuels that implored Americans to remember how "the responsible use of America's abundant resources of natural gas, oil and coal have dramatically improved the human condition."

By all accounts, he's decidedly political and unabashedly an advocate for dirty energy.

Up to this juncture, FERC's work to keep the grid running at fair rates hasn't been a "red" or "blue" issue. Although FERC's five commissioners are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate, no more than three of its commissioners may belong to the same political party in order to maintain its tradition of careful bipartisanship. Under this bipartisan approach, clean energy progress has marched forward: Year after year, regional grids have hit higher and higher proportions of renewable energy. FERC has eliminated barriers to new energy technologies whether chaired by a "D" or an "R." Even under the initial slate of Trump appointees, FERC unanimously rejected the Trump coal bailout.

That bipartisan tradition now appears to be under threat.

If McNamee were confirmed as a FERC commissioner, Trump would gain a decisive vote on a commission that's currently split 2-2. With critical matters looming ahead on FERC's agenda, this is dangerous. As executive director of the Office of Policy at the Department of Energy, McNamee played a central role in an attempt to undermine wholesale energy markets for the benefit of the coal industry – an attempt FERC has blocked to date.

FERC recently issued a ruling that has the potential to undercut state policies that level the playing field for renewable resources.PJM Interconnection runs the nation's largest regional grid, which stretches from Illinois to New Jersey and down to North Carolina. FERC's ruling would effectively block state-supported renewables from participating in one of PJM's electricity markets. The ruling is poorly conceived, and Earthjustice is working to reverse it. FERC could right its own course with a pending case that provides another way for the impacted renewables to receive payment for their services. Without McNamee, FERC's two Democratic commissioners could potentially negotiate a compromise solution that respects state renewable energy programs. However, with McNamee, FERC's fellow Republican commissioners could be swayed toward a hardline position and produce a 3-2 pro-fossil fuel vote.

FERC also is considering a request from a gas-fired power plant in California that could have dangerous implications for the state's recent historic decision to achieve 100 percent clean energy electricity by 2045.

It just so happens that this gas-fired plant, La Paloma in Kern County, was purchased last year by Daniel Andrew Beal, a large donor to Trump's presidential bid who also served as a campaign adviser. La Paloma is asking FERC to order California to put a mandatory capacity market into place—which would explicitly prevent renewable energy sources supported by state policies from earning money in the market. The results would be devastating for a state that has been a pioneer in sourcing its electricity from clean energy. If McNamee were confirmed, it is far more likely that Beal will get his way.

Together with our advocacy partners, Earthjustice is paying close attention to these and other matters that could be threatened by a McNamee confirmation. We will continue to fight to keep politics from getting in the way of progress at FERC. But we need your help. Call your senators today and ask them to oppose the appointment of Bernard McNamee to FERC. Our clean energy future is at stake.

Kim Smaczniak is a staff attorney with the Clean Energy Program. She helps shape legal strategies to ensure a fair playing field for clean energy in federally-regulated electricity markets. Kim is based in Washington, DC.

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

==

While at the Department of Energy, McNamee would have helped energy secretary Rick Perry’s proposal to prop up failing coal and nuclear plants on the grounds on national security.

The plan was rebuffed by FERC in January 2018, but DOE came back with a similar proposal in June.

McNamee would replace Robert Powelson, who resigned from the commission in August. McNamee could sit until the end of the Commission’s term in June 2020.

In response, Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, said the nomination was a "clear assault on FERC’s independence".

"We’ll do everything we can to stop his Senate confirmation. From just a quick look at his resume, the speeches he’s made, and his past associations, it’s clear McNamee is nothing more than a political plant for energy secretary Rick Perry and Donald Trump.

"If the Trump administration moves forward with its scam to bailout the coal industry, taxpayers and electricity customers will be forced to pay tens of billions of dollars to subsidise these uneconomic coal plants for years, plants that instead could be replaced by cleaner, cheaper energy today."

Fossils support

Writing for The Hill website in April for ‘Earth Day’, McNamee supported fossil fuels and the role they play in the US energy system:

"We have been told that fossil fuels are wrecking the environment and our health.

"The facts are that life expectancy, population and economic growth all began to increase dramatically when fossil fuels were harnessed — and have continued to do so for the 200 years since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

"When one thinks about it, it makes sense. Fossil fuels have allowed people to be more productive, to engage in less backbreaking manual labor, and to grow more food.

"Some suggest that we can replace fossil fuels with renewable resources to meet our needs, but they never explain how.

"About 63% of electricity generation comes from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases), with about 20% from nuclear energy.

"Renewable wind and solar, however, only provide about 7.6% of our electricity needs (6.3% wind and 1.3% solar) — and this is only when the sun is shining or wind is blowing.

"This does not mean we should not use renewable energy. Of course we should. But these facts do mean that we need to be honest about whether renewables can displace other energy resources in providing for our energy needs."

==

2/08/2018 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 02/08/2018 11:23

TPPF Brings On Bernard McNamee, Former Dept. Of Energy Official, To Lead Tenth Amendment Center, Life:Powered

AUSTIN - Today, the Texas Public Policy Foundation announced the hire of Bernard McNamee to lead the Center for Tenth Amendment Action and to serve as director of the Foundation's Life:Powered project. Most recently, McNamee served as deputy general counsel for energy policy under Secretary Rick Perry at the Department of Energy.Previous positions include partner at McGuireWoods, chief of staff to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and as senior advisor to Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

As the head of the Center for Tenth Amendment Action, McNamee will focus on applying the Texas Model of individual liberty, fiscal responsibility and free-market reforms to federal policy, in the areas of health care, taxes, and spending. He will also lead the Life:Powered project, a continuation of TPPF's work on energy policy, to ensure Americans continue to benefit from abundant, reliable, safe and clean energy.

'We are thrilled to have someone with Bernie's experience in the Executive Branch, in Congress, at the state level, and in private practice lead these critical initiatives,' said executive vice president Kevin Roberts. 'His deep knowledge of energy policy, in particular, comes at an important time for Texas and the country as America becomes a leader in energy innovation and development. Bernie will spearhead our effort to maintain energy reliability and a commitment to a clean environment while ensuring our state and national economies continue to grow.'

About Life:Powered:

Life:Powered begins with the principle that human flourishing depends on energy use, often in invisible and unnoticed ways. A reliable energy supply can feed the hungry, take care of the sick, and ensure a prosperous economic future for society. It promotes freedom and independence around the world and right here at home.

The United States, and Texas in particular, has the means to lead the world in energy production. Through American ingenuity and innovation, responsible production of reliable energy will make the world safer, our environment cleaner, and each and every citizen more prosperous.

For more information, please contact Alicia Pierce at**apierce@texaspolicy.com or 512-472-2700.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit free-market research institute based in Austin that aims to foster human flourishing by protecting and promoting liberty, opportunity and personal responsibility.

Primary website: www.TexasPolicy.com

Facebook page: www.Facebook.com/TexasPublicPolicyFoundation

Twitter feed: www.Twitter.com/TPPF

==