Get Energy Smart! NOW!

For Earth Day, Michael Moore released released the fundamentally misleading Planet of the Humans.  Highlighting this at Daily Kos generated attention with 356 comments (as of the moment), many defending Moore as insightful and too many dismissing Moore’s rampant truthiness.  For the same reasons that Moore got lots of soft-peddled media attention for the release, his notoriety led knowledgeable reviewers to (regrettably) take the time to watch the film (such as here) and, well, the detailing of errors, falsehoods, truthiness piled up.  And, a letter from scientists made this clear. With evidence in hand, one of the film’s distributor didn’t hesitate to act.

An interesting red flag for a distributor (or publisher), Moore refused to allow the distributor see (and have external review of) the film prior to release.

At Films for Action, (the extremely good and worth reading) Skepticism IsAn Healthy, but Planet of the Humans Is Toxic – A Critical Review ends

A movie that purports to care about the environment and the future of humanity and yet seeks to undermine support for the very things we must do to save this planet, and ourselves, is worse than a disappointment. It’s reckless.

Note that Films for Action is not the full distributor but a sustainable film clearinghouse.

UPDATE: Films for Action chose to reverse action and put the film back up on their site:

Providing a context for Moore’s truthiness

Yes, there are elements of truth in Planet of the Humans. Yes, neither solar nor wind is without environmental impact. Yes, human population is a real challenge that is too little discussed. Yes (YES), biofuels are overhyped and are (mainly?) damaging.  Yes … HOWEVER, Moore falsifies much, maligns (too) many people and institutions with partial truth or falsehoods, presents things in fundamentally misleading ways, and — writ large — does not provide a useful contribution to the discussion of our global (climate) challenges and solution options/paths to address them.

Like  Robert Bryce’s work (not that in anyway are producer Jeff Gibbs’ and Moore’s knowledge of energy issues as encyclopedic as libertarian, climate-dismissing Bryce’s), this film has the same fundamental flaws:

• it is too error-filled for non-educated/knowledgeable people to watch due to misdirection & embedded deceit that might not be evident as the viewer has to be knowledgeable to see the truthiness and deceit.
• For those already knowledgeable, the core thematics/points aren’t news and it just takes so much effort to wade through the falsehoods and truthiness for having thoughts/perspective that are already out there in discussion.  

Additionally, Gibbs’ and Moore’s truthiness and falsehood-filled product isn’t helpful because they created something that is being leveraged by climate deniers/delayers to attack (not complete, need to improve, are improving) solution paths. (For examples, see Emily Atkin’s thought-provoking The wheel of first-time climate dudes.)

NOTE/UPDATE:

To make clear, “a” distributor (with a limited footprint) pulled the film, not “the” distributor which is Moore’s Rumble.  From Rumble Media

I’m the distributor of Planet of the Humans. Rumble Media. The movie was released on Tuesday and has not stopped being in release for one minute. It’s on my YouTube channel where I’ve made it available free of charge as a public service. In these three and a half days it has had nearly 2 million views. Not sure where you heard it was no longer in distribution. Probably wishful thinking on someone’s part! This movie, like Rumble Media, exists in part to ignite a discussion, end greed/profit-motive/capitalism, and save the planet.

To reinforce his wonderful judgment in supporting Nader to undermine Gore and help give US George Bush, for Earth Day 2020, Michael Moore has released “Planet of the Humans”.

Sadly, with this, Moore demonstrates how not to do a quality film about important issues.  

Environmental scientist Dana Nuccitelli (publications) clearly makes the case of Moore’s failure in the following twitter thread:

Basically the film presented any imperfect energy source (which is every energy source) as inherently bad. No consideration of pros vs. cons, just the cons.It’s fine to look at downsides; we’re already working to improve most of them. But ignoring the upside is not constructive

Moore’s work, btw, has many moments of borderline slander/libel.

Not surprisingly, Moore’s failure has been embraced by those who have long attacked renewables. And, sadly, been promoted across the media as Moore as this ‘left-wing’, man-of-the-people contrarian makes good press such as occurred with The Late Show.

Some other reactions.

The excellent Leah Stokes lays out Moore’s delivery of a “lump of coal” for Earth Day.

Economist Mark Paul identifies Moore’s philosophical grounding.

And, Jeff Nesbit has some people Moore could have spoken with.

Yeh, perhaps this would have turned out better if Moore had focused on those who know what they’re talking about.

UPDATE 1: Moore & Gibbs are like so so many climate delayers, focusing on highlighting problems in inadequate & improving solutions rather than making clear the disasters that are fossil fuels. @JeffGibbs & @MMFlint: true #FossilFools.

UPDATE 2:

Like  Robert Bryce’s work (not that in anyway are Jeff Gibbs’ and Moore’s knowledge of energy issues as encyclopedic as libertarian, climate-dismissing Bryce’s), this film has the same fundamental flaws:

• it is too error-filled for non-educated/knowledgeable people to watch due to misdirection & embedded deceit that might not be evident as the viewer has to be knowledgeable to see the truthiness and deceit.
• For those already knowledgeable, the core thematics/points aren’t news and it just takes so much effort to wade through the falsehoods and truthiness for having thoughts/perspective that are already out there in discussion.  

Additionally, Gibbs’ and Moore’s truthiness and falsehood-filled product isn’t helpful because they created something that is being leveraged by climate deniers/delayers to attack (not complete, need to improve, are improving) solution paths. (For examples, see Emily Atkin’s thought-provoking The wheel of first-time climate dudes.)

Under pressure from all directions (improving efficiency and alternatives (electrification); coronavirus economic collapse; and Saudi-Russian price war), the U.S. oil market collapsed (even further) today with WTI prices as low as $11.50 earlier this morning.

While there are reasons for the particular collapse (oil futures timing) and while the gap between WTI / Brent Crude is (in percentage terms) the highest it has ever been (as water-accessible crude has higher value in this environment than land-locked crude), this is a stunning data point in the massively changed (and changing) energy market space.

Seeing that chart raised the question — when were oil prices ever this low (in inflation adjusted terms)? First thought was ‘not since before Oil Crises’. It appears that ‘first thought’ was wrong. See this February 2020 look at inflation adjusted oil prices.

While Friday’s price was well above the December 1998 lows, the high inflation of the 1970s actually put ‘inflation adjusted’ oil prices prior to 1980 (often well) above $20/barrel in February 2020 terms dating back to at least May 1946.

Update: Last I checked, 1861 is before WWII …

PS: As a side note, when it comes to tar sands, Canadian producers need to pay people to take their products.

Amid Coronavirus’ horrific impacts across humanity (from illnesses and deaths to economic devastation) are glimmers of how to seize a better path forward and what could result from a concerted global impact.  From countries restructuring economies to emphasize assuring basic needs and human dignity (such as South Korea launching a Green New Deal as its path forward) to clear skies and breathable air in some of the typically most polluting places in the world, an opportunity for betterment is before US.

Regretfully, destructive special interests have their maws deeply into government processes, shamelessly and greedily exploiting urgent needs for massive programs to keep people from starving, maintain basic services, and bridge economies through an ‘induced coma’.

Poster Child #1: CARES’ Act Couldn’t Care Less Provision

Within the United States, the advertising slogan CARES Act is, in all too many ways, a poster child of exploitative interests securing much larger benefits than what is going to critical services and to Main Street. Within the CARES Act, with little more than a few sentences buried in hundreds of pages, a $170 billion (with a capital B) tax giveaway of primary benefit to hedge fund investors and real-estate business owners.  Hmm, any surprise that this that will overwhelmingly (well over 80%) go to the 43,000 households with over $1M/year in income? Senate Majority Leader McConnell snuck this into the CARES Act and, amid the pressure for quick action, Democrats didn’t begin to understand fully the implications of McConnell’s insertion until the bill was already out of the Senate. Why let a crisis go to waste when you can, instead, exploit it for $Bs in tax breaks for Donald Trump, Jared Kushner, and other equally ethical and ever-so needy individuals.

Now, there were other McConnell couldn’t care less for the future wish-list items that didn’t make it into the CARES Act including many billions for oil, natural gas, and coal interests which he sacrificed in a trade to stop renewal of renewable energy tax credits.

Never fear, Mitch, as the Fed is here to help.

Poster child #2: Federal Reserve Polluters’ Benefits Fund

The Federal Reserves’ moves to steady the economy are also filled with special interest plays. On 9 April, the Federal Reserve announced the rules for $750 billion (and, well, with a BOLDLY CAPITAL B BILLION) in corporate debt purchases. As a Friends of the Earth research team has documented in a new report, the benefits that many fossil fuel interests will receive under the convoluted rule set could well be an order of magnitude larger than what Mitch and the rest of couldn’t care less for humanity Congressional Republicans couldn’t deliver for them.

Let’s take a moment for context. While the image of the industry are excess Exxon profits and enviable Jed Clampett-like millionaires, the truth across much of the U.S. oil and natural gas industry for the past decade has been financially questionable operations leveraging privileged financial debt access. Even before Coronavirus-driven collapse in demand and prices, sophisticated observers have long-laid out how this fossil-foolish deck-of-cards was unsustainable with revenue not even keeping up with operating costs, debt servicing, and shareholder payouts — flipping debt has been more critical for many operator and investor fortunes than hitting an oil gusher. As per a 2018 discussion

The U.S. shale oil industry hailed as a “revolution” has burned through a quarter trillion dollars more than it has brought in over the last decade. It has been a money-losing endeavor of epic proportions.

As these over-leveraged firms, surviving via unsustainable financial practices in an unsustainable climate-destroying industry, hit the wall of Cronavirus demand and price collapses, more than a few said: Let them eat bankruptcy!

Sadly, it seems that the Federal Reserve doesn’t truly believe in capitalism — at least when it comes for politically connected industries. As FOE has documented, there is likely in the range of at least $50B in fossil-foolish debt buyout with much of this actually junk-status bonds that slip through the cracks of Fed rule sets.

• “ExxonMobil, Chevron and Conoco are together eligible for up to $19.4 billion in potential benefits, based on their credit ratings and outstanding long-term debt,
• “There are 12 fracking-focused oil and gas companies that could potentially qualify for the new program. Together, they may be eligible for over $24.1 billion in potential benefits.
• “Major fracking company Continental Resources, whose debt was recently downgraded to below investment grade by S&P, is potentially eligible for as much as $1.5 billion under new, weaker standards announced by the Federal Reserve.
• “As BlackRock begins purchasing “high yield” exchange-traded funds (ETFs) to bolster corporate debt markets, energy companies (predominantly oil and gas) stand to benefit disproportionately as the largest single issuer of junk bonds, at 11% of the entire US market.”

The Fed’s program is, in all too many ways, far looser than the CARES Act. Unsustainable firms, teetering on the edge of financial insolvency even before Coronavirus, are going to be able to issue additional debt that the Fed will buy at incredibly low interest rates. Not only will taxpayers being keeping poorly run firms in polluting industries afloat, but these firms will be able to use the Fed’s money (hint: taxpayer money) for stock buybacks and executive bonuses. What a dirty f—king bailout, indeed.

Lemon Socialism in action

While Republicans like to moan about “socialism”, they these measures are heavily polluted versions of the Grand Oil Parties’ real lemon socialist motto:

Privatize profits
Socialize costs

Amid the Coronavirus pandemic, governments around the world are struggling with dealing with the medical crisis and economic impacts at the same time. Clearly, some are leading by impressive example (Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, to name a few) and, well, some are less than impressive in action.

In the United States, the combined anti-science and corruption of Trump (and his Republican enablers) is providing glaring examples, on both fronts, of just how not to do things. Exemplifying this, when Trump opens his mount and lies about actions and contradicts leading medical advice, markets crash. In Congress, Mitch McConnell seems more intent on leveraging the crisis to provide a piggy-bank for Republican-supporting Corporations and donors than in actually saving lives, keeping Americans afloat amid economic shutdown, and fostering a better functioning society into the future.

While a believer that Democracy is about checks and balances, about compromising, about …, the situation is too urgent for those seeking to save lives, keep Americans afloat, and work for a better tomorrow to engage in pre-compromising and allowing McConnell to set the agenda.

The power of the purse resides with Congress. And, in this, the House has the primary role, with responsibility for all legislation that raises revenue to originate in the House. Considering the Corporate-friendly, average American-hating legislation that the Senate Republicans under Mitch McConnell are trying to drive through, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should call Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin and Senator McConnell with a three word message:

“We’ve got it”.

Then, come up with a series of 3-5 bills (or so) that are based on a three-bullet, five-word set of principles: Main Street; Clean; Future Building.

Here, in bullet form, are some basic thoughts about how and where resources should go.

• Main Street
  • not Wall Street
  • eg.
    • Support (ASAP and continuing) medical responsiveness and society sustaining
      • Resources for hospitals, first responders
      • Sustain/support essential services (from water works to grocery clerks, from remote educators to postal/delivery services)
    • get money into people’s hands in both ASAP & sustained
      • Some money to ‘everyone’ right away to ‘shock’ system and keep people afloat
        • Perhaps initial check of $750/adult, $250/child
        • then a month of $250/$100 per week
        • Do it via credit cards that enable/foster rapid spending
      • Expansion/extension of unemployment/food stamps/medicaid support
        • cover gig economy, loosen paperwork requirements, raise payment levels, extend duration
      • Student loans
        • Refinance all student loans to 1.5%
    • figure out how to keep communities, families, small businesses afloat
      • A month’s moratorium on loan / rental / etc payments nation wide (for renters, home owners, businesses), penalties for late payment on any bills / contracts within the United States, etc …
        • with path for rapid infusion of cash to ‘unable to function without money flow’ 
      • including some share of ‘salaries’ for firms that are putting workers (especially small businesses) so that ‘salaries’ are paid (even if, let’s say: 100% to 25k/year, 75% to $96k/year) amid shutdowns & workforce going back to work when/if firms/businesses restart
      • Offer low-interest loans/refinancing for businesses, home mortgages (let’s say a 2% 15-year loan from the Fed for first mortgages up to $150k, 2.5% up to $350k), etc
    • for the moment, let Fed deal with Corporations & Wall Street
• Clean
  • not dirty
  • E.g.,
    • No financing for coal, oil & natural gas
      • especially not dirty deals like exempting coal industry from black lung obligations, any fossil fuel from clean-up responsibilities, etc …
    • Leverage 0% loans for clean-energy investments/projects
      • from solar on roof to offshore wind — low-interest rates drive down delivered electricity projects
      • Clean infrastructure
• Future building
  • rather than past recreating
  • E.g.,
    • Don’t throw money at sectors unlikely to come back for an extended period at anything close to pre-crisis levels (cruise ships) nor at sectors that shouldn’t come back no matter what (coal) 
      • E.g., when it comes to some, Let Them Eat Bankruptcy
    • Think through the Disaster 4Rs (Relief, Recovery, Reconstruction, & Resiliency) throughout process — so that resources/projects flow through from helping people survive to helping communities/society thrive
      • From climate to boosting health care infrastructure to fostering/enabling changed education/work to … leverage crisis as opportunity to enable a better functioning society & economy
      • Democracy: Vote By Mail improves Democracy while protecting health
      • Etc …

Notes

The above are ‘thoughts’, seeking to articulate how ‘we’ might respond to the current crises in (more) productive ways. For overlapping concepts, for example, see:

• A green stimulus to rebuild our economy lays down examples and principles for a multi-$trillion, multi-year stimulus path to dig our way out of the Coronavirus pandemic (and worsened by Trump) economic devastation while addressing climate risks and economic/environmental injustices.

The United States confronts the danger of an economic stimulus that restores?-?or even deepens?-?our reliance on fossil fuels. This danger comes from explicit proposals to bail out the fossil fuel sector and roll back workers’ rights, and also from generic general stimulus policies that do not take climate into account. Indeed, infrastructure spending as usual?-?e.g. highway expansion?-?will lock in more carbon pollution for decades. We can avoid these problems by crafting a recovery that accelerates the creation of a 21st century green economy.

• 5 Principles for Just COVID-19 Relief and Stimulus has been signed by some 300 groups.

call for COVID-19 relief and stimulus packages to contribute to a just recovery by upholding these five principles:

(1) HEALTH IS THE TOP PRIORITY, FOR ALL PEOPLE, WITH NO EXCEPTIONS
(2) PROVIDE ECONOMIC RELIEF DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE
(3) RESCUE WORKERS AND COMMUNITIES, NOT CORPORATE EXECUTIVES
(4) MAKE A DOWN PAYMENT ON A REGENERATIVE ECONOMY, WHILE PREVENTING FUTURE CRISES
(5) PROTECT OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS WHILE PROTECTING EACH OTHER

Three basic principles in five words should guide economy sustaining and stimulating efforts for the coming months and years.

• Main Street
  • not Wall Street
• Clean
  • not dirty
• Future building
  • not past restoring

While every day of the Trump presidency has been painful and with life-threatening implications (from climate change to reduced medical care to children freezing in cages), the Coronavirus pandemic has accelerated the pace and expanded the nature of that pain.  It is hard to see anything in public discourse without being reminded of the pain that Trump and the rest of the GOP Anti-Science SyndromE Sufferers (hint: ASSES) are inflicting on America and the world.  From disinformation about coronavirus risks, to false statements about preparedness and responses, to poorly thought through actions that create coronavirus petri dishes, Trump is literally putting more lives at risk with every passing second. And, in doing so, blatantly demonstrating his ignorance and disdain for experts, science, and, well, basic human common sense.

This afternoon, however, Trump did an impressive two-fer in just one sentence: with a celebratory combination of coronavirus science denial and climate science denial in one 14 word sentence.

Coronavirus science denialism

Amid growing restrictions on gatherings (with CDC guidance to not have gatherings above 50 people, shared out just yesterday in a Trump tweet) and clear evidence that social distancing is the most effective know weapon in the arsenal to reduce coronavirus deaths, Team Trump gathered a large crowd in the Rose Garden Friday to listen to a devotional crowd-given pat-on-the-back for a job poorly done.

Thank, I guess, for that declaration of a national emergency but a basic expectation of a “leader” is leadership. And, that includes modeling the sorts of behaviors and actions expected of all of U.S.

Climate science denialism

Trump tweets that

“the Rose garden” is “just coming out of a cold Winter!”

Seriously, WTF?  Other than Trump being one of those elderly who flock to Miami for the winter and so divorced from the real world that weather is irrelevant, with essentially zero snow through the winter here, it is hard to see how anyone in the DC area (and, well, most of the world) could think that 2019-2020 has been a “cold winter”.  

Some snippets from the #FakeNews Washington Post provide a window on this

• In explaining why the Cherry Blossoms are blooming far earlier than “normal”, the cause is that “The abnormally mild weather, which began in the winter, has accelerated this year’s bloom cycle.”
• Examining the winter, the headline explains: Global warming is making Washington’s climate more Southern. This winter, it most resembles Atlanta’s.
• Looking globally, “Across much of the Northern Hemisphere this year, winter was a shadow of its former self … Europe’s average temperature for December through February was 6.1 degrees Fahrenheit above the 40-year average, shattering the previous record by more than two degrees. In the United States, temperatures were above average for every state but Alaska.”

FFS Trump

Trump’s anti-science syndrome threaten lives and, well, is quite literally leading to lost lives. 

==============

While the climate crisis is urgent and requires urgent, serious action, it is also a massively complex systems-of-systems challenge, with massively complicated and innumerous interactions, that will require decades (actually, centuries) of action to mitigate, adapt, and redress the impacts that we already face and will face for generations to come.

For the past decade, the world energy system has had numerous ‘revolutions’ underway.

A clean energy revolution (with expanded deployment of solar, wind, batteries, electric vehicles, and otherwise with plunging prices) offers real silver bb pathways for the climate crisis.

The “Fracking Revolution” radically transformed the fossil fuel landscape, massively boosting U.S. production of oil and fossil gas along with lowered prices, changed industrial manufacturing patterns, and shifts in international security. While there were many benefits from that Fracking, those have come at a high cost of significantly boosted methane emissions along with undermining the speed of renewable energy deployment (due to entrenched political and economic interests and falsely perceived (due to excluding externalities) low costs).

To take serious climate action, we must address fracking: the methane leakages are too serious; the falsely low prices undermine moves to clean energy; and, even with zero methane leakages, fossil gas still emits significant carbon when burned (even if 50% of coal’s emissions) .

However, moves to Act On Climate ( whether a Green New Deal, moving to a Virginia Clean Economy, or …) should recognize the complexity of the energy system, the reality of a complex system of system, and the need for charting pathways that do not create highly dangerous shocks that could undermine the potential for moving to a prosperous, climate friendly society.

Repeated calls for any sort of immediate end to fracking seem to ignore this. We can’t just ban it without sending shockwaves through the energy system and creating not just economic risks and repercussions.

Within the United States, fracked fossil fuels play a serious role in oil and fossil gas production.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that in 2019, U.S. dry shale gas production was about 25.28 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), and equal to about 75% of total U.S. dry natural gas production in 2019

If there were a stroke of a pen to “ban fracking”, there would be massive impacts through the economy — rapid, lasting, and utterly unnecessary damages.

Yet, to be quite clear, Frack Fracking: while securing, traditional energy resiliency and economic concepts, fracking creates too many risks and damages to be expanded or even maintained at continued levels. In other words, Fracking has been a miracle at too high a cost.

We must chart and navigate a course to drive down existing fracking’s negative externalities while deploying clean economy elements to lower, with every passing day, our need to rely on fracked oil and fracked fossil gas.

A basic policy portfolio

• Methane leakage detection, control regulation, and enforcement of regulation — from the fracked well to the end usage.
  • Reducing leakage means more fossil gas being used, rather than simply wasted.
• Pricing GHG emissions (not just carbon — also methane, super GHGs, etc …)
  • to further incentivize both reduced leakage and accelerate moves to clean economy options.
• Invest in rapid deployment of clean economy options
  • to lower the need for fracked fossil fuels with every passing moment.

With these three elements, working together, the climate impacts of fracking would fall dramatically and rapidly. And, we might be able to (essentially) eliminate fracking from the US energy system over roughly the coming 10-15 years while boosting economic performance, creating jobs, enhancing energy resiliency, and reducing US and global emissions.

In other words, Frack Fracking even though we shouldn’t ban it outright.

To address climate change, boost economic performance, and increase energy resiliency, we must electrify everything. As part of this, electrifying U.S. school buses is a particularly beneficial move that can and should occur rapidly.

With Dominion Energy and Governor Northam announcements of electric school bus (ESB) demonstration projects last year, Virginia seemed truly on the cusp of being the national leader in ESBs with the real potential to radically change the industry while bringing huge benefits to the Commonwealth and its citizens (improved student health and performance; reduced pollution; better service; improved grid resiliency; reduced costs; job creation).

Entering Virginia’s legislative session, with multiple (sigh, troubled, all meriting improvement) bills, it appeared likely that there would be some form of reasonable compromise that would create a legal structure for Virginia to set off a path to electrifying school transportation at a reasonable (even if not as fast as appropriate pace). Regrettably, this is not how the session progressed.

Writ large, other than Dominion lobbyists, relevant interest groups and experts seemed to have been sitting on the side. (Due, almost certainly in large part, to the energy required for negotiating and securing passage of the Clean Energy Act.) Rather than strengthening and improving ESB-related legislation, the legislature’s final hours will have open for consideration a bill that seemingly came via dictation from Dominion lobbyists. This bill, Senator Lucas’s SB1096, subordinates public and ratepayer interest to Dominion executive and shareholder interests.

SB1096

• Restricts regulatory oversight authorities on Dominion’s decision-making about buses and charges to the ratepayer for the program through defining it as “in the public interest”. (paragraph E)
• Prioritizes, above all else, Dominion’s interests in decision-making about which school districts will get ESBs by solely identifying “locational benefits that the school buses’ storage batteries are expected to bring“. (B.4) [Note: this is an example of how this bill weakens the situation. HB75, for example, had this language when originally introduced but with engagement with the sponsor from concerned groups and individuals, this was deleted. The original version of SB1096, from 5 March, didn’t have it but for some reason the clause was added back in.]
• Mandates (reflecting Dominion’s questionable priorities) “active lap-and-shoulder belt occupant restraint system” for every ESB (b.8), at a cost of $10,000 per bus (or $12.5 million across a 1250 ESB demonstration project), even though neither Virginia nor the Federal government require this on buses (only one Virginia school district requires this), nor does analysis appear to justify this high cost to school districts.
• Has uncertain (left open for future negotiation) safeguards against Dominion mismanaging ESB batteries and leaving school systems’ stranded without student transportation. (B.5)
• Creates a structure that will enable Dominion to dictate terms for electrifying all 17,000 of Virginia’s school buses — even if actual ‘well-regulated’ market capitalism could provide (far) better solutions.
• Does not have
  • a mandate for analysis and assessment of ESB cost-benefit streams nor of ESB program deployment;
  • prioritization of societal benefit streams (such as public health, environmental justice, …) in deployment decision-making;
  • safeguards against excess Dominion profiteering;
  • provide for real public entity visibility over Dominion’s cost structures and internal decision-making related to what will, eventually, be $Bs of public-entity investment streams.

Prior to and amid the legislative session, ESB proponents (including me) saw real potential for working with Dominion to come out with win-win-win legislation that make this more of a public-private partnership, potentially secure greater benefits for the Commonwealth (such as ESB manufacturing), open paths for accelerating ESB deployment even faster than Dominion called for and outside Dominion’s service area, and all while providing for Dominion making reasonable (rather excess) profits through a market-driving Virginia ESB deployment.

Sigh, that is not the case.

Instead, in its waning hours, the Legislature will be left with an epitome of The Virginia Way: a Dominion Energy written bill that will subordinate public and ratepayer interest to enabling excess profiteering and a private entity to dictate on issues (like school bus restraints) that truly should be made by informed public servants (elected and otherwise) working on behalf of public interest, not private shareholders.

I am pained. To tackle the climate crisis, we must electrify everything — fast. As an energy/climate/business issues analyst, a concerned citizen, and a parent, I am very well aware that electric school buses represent an extremely high-payoff ‘electrify everything’ opportunity. As a Virginian, I was excited about the potential not just for Virginia to be a real leader in making this a reality but for the Commonwealth to leverage the choice to be a leader for creating 1,000s of high-quality manufacturing jobs (potentially as economic development in coal-industry dependent communities). I was enthused. And, now I am despondent.

When it comes to SB1096, when the Speaker asks the Delegates “Shall the bill pass“, regrettably, the answer should be a resounding NO!

A well-used but (all too) often adage

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

While not wanting to suggest that a global pandemic is a ‘good’, this crisis does create opportunity for action (and not just for unethical Amazon vendor price gouging). Clean energy investing, across all economy, is a prime example of this.

Interest rates are plummeting and, with the world economy taking significant hits already from the coronavirus (such as empty airports, canceled meetings, and reduced frequenting of restaurants), there is no window in sight for their going back up.

Low interest rates are perfect for taking “infrastructure week” seriously. And, within this, are especially relevant for a clean energy economy as clean-energy options (solar, wind, batteries, efficiency) are higher cost-to-buy while lower cost-to-own options requiring upfront investments for longer-term benefits. This makes interest rates a key determinate factor for the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) — the cost of electricity. In other words, “Interest rates are a decisive factor for competitive renewables“. A study found that about 25 percent of the reduction in wind electricity prices in Germany occurred due to lower interest rates. For investors, higher interest rates lower (quite significantly) the value of renewable energy investing. Lower interest rates translate, quite directly, into lower renewable energy costs and greater investor interest in renewable energy projects.

Now, turn the conversation to Virginia. One of the major legislative achievements (amid a huge number of bills) was the passage of the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA), which includes a mandate for 100 clean power (electricity) by 2045 with significant requirements for a major ramping up of renewable (wind and solar) resources over the coming decades.

As an aside, regretfully, Virginia’s legislators (seemingly to a person) have been working with a false assumption: that going clean will cost more than remaining with a polluting energy system. That has long been a fossil foolish operating assumption that totally ignored real costs (e.g., the impacts negative externalities from burning fossil fuels) Plunging renewable prices over the past decade make this a less accurate belief even within the most-stove-piped look solely at ‘ratepayer costs’. (For example, Mayflower wind has now come in lower than expected, 5.8 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) which is below the targeted 6.5 cents per kWh. With a reverse auctioning process, Virginia’s offshore wind (with the exact same financing structures) should come in below that.) The significant decrease in interest rates make claims that ‘going clean costs more’ even less truthful.

For a perspective on how interest rates can impact clean energy options, consider this five-year-old look from the Center on Economic Policies. (To be clear, “five-year-old” matters: renewable investment costs have fallen significantly in the intervening time period while polluting energy options have, writ large increased in price.) All things being equal, as interest rates fall, “green energy technologies” become more competitive.

And, even back in 2015 with much higher renewable energy investment costs, ‘going green’ was cost advantaged by about a two-percent interest rate. Where are those interest rates now?

In any event, even working with the false assumption that ‘clean costs more’, the Democrats of the Virginia legislature passed legislation requiring a move off polluting coal and natural gas in the power sector. This is phased in over a 25 year period even as a key analysis (with many flawed pessimistic assumptions) showed the highest return on investment would be a ten-year project and even a back-of-the-envelope effort makes clear that a 15-20 year (2035-2040) target was entirely possible and affordable.

All of this, however, was before Coronavirus impacts with collapsing interest rates and reduced business/economic activity. We have very clear indications that the global economy will require significant stimulus activity in the coming months and years. Turning to the opportunity of the crisis, extremely low interest rates mean borrowing for infrastructure (including clean energy) is incredibly affordable and that infrastructure investments are highly stimulative.

A rough (plus-or-minus, dependent on the situation) rule of thumb: a one percent change in interest rates translates into about one cent per kilowatt cost for renewable energy. Drop the cost of money by a percent, reduce the cost of electricity by 1 cent per kilowatt hour.

Using these sort of rough rule of thumb guidance, consider just one arena: offshore wind. The VCEA envisions 5.2 gigawatts of offshore wind. This easily $10-$15 billion project will lead to 10,000s of jobs and significant amounts of clean electrons into the economy. Perhaps looking too far back into the history of offshore wind prices, legislators have acted as if this would drive increased costs to consumers. Putting aside the significant benefit from reducing peak pricing impacts, the plunging price of offshore wind projects around the world and the low prices emerging for other U.S. East Coast offshore wind projects, a reasonable price (LCOE) for a large-scale Virginia offshore wind project should have been in the range of 5.5 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour. “Should have been” with interest rates of 1 February 2020. With the interest rates we are now seeing, it might be reasonable to expect that a well-managed (with an open reverse auction and some leveraging of Commonwealth’s AAA Bond rating) Virginia Offshore Wind project should be able to deliver clean electricity at below 5 cents per kilowatt hour.

Our economy needs stimulus in the face of coronavirus impacts.

The necessity to move to a clean economy is clear and Virginia now has a legislative mandate to transition to a clean economy.

Low interest rates have made it even cheaper and fiscally advantageous to accelerate that transition.

Virginia shouldn’t let a good crisis go to waste:

• save money by
• leveraging low interest rates to
• create good jobs and substantial economic activity by
• accelerating moves to a clean economy.