Get Energy Smart! NOW!

In no small part, the climate crisis is a problem of money and it is a challenge where better use and management of money could do much to address the crisis. Sunday, Elizabeth Warren released Stop Wall Street from Financing the Climate Crisis. Simply put, powerful, actionable, and effective measures that would do much to address that ‘problem of money’.

Forget that “invisible hand” malarky, the reality is that economies have structures — rules, regulations, and even norms that provide the context in which economic interactions occur. Sometimes that is gang rule (think Libertarian Paradise of Somalia), sometimes dictatorial (think North Korea), and, for most of the world’s economies, this is dominated by laws and regulations (even as perverted by corruption, illicit actions, cronyism to a greater or lesser extent everywhere) in various forms of (most often some degree of Social Democratic) capitalism. The key is to have a well-regulated economy that enables the positive aspects of capitalism while constraining or addressing its problems.

As someone who has extremely strong understanding of how markets can skew to the advantage of the powerful along with developing paths to create balance between large/small players (think CFPB), it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Warren has considered the linkages between financial (mis)regulation and the climate crisis … and that she ‘has a plan for that’.

Warren(‘s team) cogently lays out reasoning and provides tangible and actionable measures to address how financial markets foster, rather than help address, the climate crisis. These include:

• Fostering pension fund divestment: Investing in fossil fuels inherently is at odds with the long-term concepts that should drive pension funds — while putting money to work creating a more risky future environment for retirees, it is fossil foolish in another way: fossil fuel stocks have been underperforming, compared to the rest of the market, and that underperformance will worsen with moves to address the climate crisis.
• Tightening bankruptcy laws to reduce the ability of polluting firms to privatize profits while socializing costs. From inadequate funds to reclaim coal fields to abandoning commitments to retirees, coal firm bankruptcies have exemplified how the system shouldn’t work. Warren will seek to address this.
• Requiring insurance companies to disclose (and address) climate risks

• Putting climate central to international engagement and trade negotiations
• Declaring that “Personnel is Policy”, Warren commits to appointing key personnel (such as Treasury Secretary and financial regulators) who understand climate change and will incorporate that in their work.

The size and the scope of the risk that climate poses to our financial system requires immediate action. I’ve committed to transitioning us away from Donald Trump’s climate-denying administration at a speed unmatched by any transition in modern history, so that we can begin tackling the urgent challenges ahead on Day One. As part of that transition, I will announce my choices for Cabinet, including a Treasury Secretary who understands the financial risks of the climate crisis, by December 1, 2020. And I’ll staff all senior and mid-level White House positions, like financial regulators, by Inauguration Day—so that we can begin de-risking our financial system from the moment I’m in office. 

Oft-hidden from public eye, so many elements in the financial system foster worsened pollution and weakening of our ability to address the climate crisis. To address this, robustly, will required Congressional action and, with all that will be required and all the obstacles to legislative progress, this is far from a guaranteed route even as Warren lays out items for working with Congress. When it comes to stopping the financial system’s funding of the climate crisis, from incorporating a social cost of carbon in government decision-making to appointing regulators who understand (grok) climate implications, there is much that the President can do through executive action to right the situation. Warren gets this.

Elizabeth Warren has released a series of serious proposals to tackle the climate crisis, in no small part building on the work done by Jay Inslee’s campaign.

Putting aside whomever you support in the primary election, the combination of Inslee’s and Warren’s work should become the template for the Democratic Party’s platform and for the next President’s tackling of the climate crisis.

“To grok something” states a deep understanding and implies an incorporation of actual knowledge so deeply “that it has become part of you, part of your identity”.

“To Gok something” is a far newer and far more hazardous entry into the lexicon: to introduce uncertainty and deceit into scientific discussion about life and death issues.

While Grok emerged from fiction, created by Robert Heinlein and introduced to the world in Strangers in a Strange Land, Gok comes from the Trump Administration‘s unending effort to undermine science and confuse Americans about critical science-related issues.

Gok is the nickname for Indur M. Goklany, a Department of the Interior appointee promoted to a gatekeeper role of Interior publications. In what has been coined “Gok Uncertainty Language” within the Department, Goklany has been inserting misleading truthiness and outright falsehoods about climate change into numerous scientific reports.

As politely put by the New York Times,

 “Goks uncertainty language” … inaccurately claims that there is a lack of consensus among scientists that the earth is warming. In Interior Department emails to scientists, Mr. Goklany pushed misleading interpretations of climate science, saying it “may be overestimating the rate of global warming, for whatever reason;” climate modeling has largely predicted global warming accurately. The final language states inaccurately that some studies have found the earth to be warming, while others have not.

Goklany has been a long-time bit player in climate-science denial from within the government, a minor bureaucrat with cameo roles with the libertarian CATO Institute’s efforts to undermine climate science and heartless Heartland Institute‘s outright science denialism.

In terms of a War on Science, perhaps Goklany could best be considered a mole lying in wait for an anti-expert, anti-knowledge, anti-science coup. With Trump’s occupation of the Oval Office, Goklany’s years of waiting were over. And, his efforts are having impact — impact that will likely resonate for years.

The Interior Department reports expressing uncertainty about the risks of global warming “become part of the record” … “They’ll be able to say, ‘We’re not going to consider climate change.’”

Three little monkeys at play — see, speak, hear nothing about climate change. Team Trump, hard at work To Gok climate science.

Goklany is just another soldier in Trump’s War on Science. To Gok is a weapon being employed in that war.

Update NOTE: One of the links above is to a Washington Post story about Goklany. Worth highlighting this more explicitly as I just realized / found out after writing this blog post that Juliet Eilperin had tweeted about this

Media norms and practices (even from serious professionals seeking, in their own way, to achieve excellence) are clearly part of the reason ‘why’ Donald Trump occupies the White House. And, such norms are also clearly part of why it has been so hard to achieve paths to address (mitigation and adaptation) Global Warming over past decades and, now, the mounting urgency of the climate crisis. From both sides framing to accommodating angry voices (promoting falsehood and deception) to embracing controversy as a path for boosting reach (e.g, #clickbait), the February 24th Washington Post front page section provided horrific examples from page A1 “reporting” to page A17 opinion by the editorial page editor.

• On the OPED section, editorial page editor Fred Hiatt falsely makes an equivalency between Trump’s climate science denialism and Sen. Bernie Sanders’ advocacy of policies Hiatt disagrees with.
• In the ‘news’ section, reporters Desmond Butler and Juliet Eilperin promote a young German climate science denialist, being promoted by climate-science denial institutions, as ‘the anti-Greta”.

Upfront, both of these are textbook quality examples of how not to do journalism and it is stunning to have such horrific mediocrity — after so many years of clear discussions about the problems these exemplify — bookending the front page section of one of the most important newspapers in the world.

Very shortly, while neither merited publication, rather than ‘both sides’ equivalency, here is roughly an accurate framing (even if sadly staying with ‘both sides’):

• OPED on presidential candidates representing a stark choice
  • Trump denies the science and pursues policies at odds with the science that are worsening the actual situation
  • Sanders understands the science, promotes a policy agenda aligned with the science that would ameliorate the situation although those policies might be unrealistically aggressive and unachievable politically.
• Article on astroturf young German:
  • Greta Thunberg’s core message: respect the science, listen to the scientists
  • Naomi Siebt’s core message: dismiss the science, disrespect the scientists.

That is an honest summary of the situation rather than the false equivalency both sides that bookended The Washington Post‘s front section.

Human beings sometimes have a hard time celebrating progress. Somewhat as an analogy to loss aversion, what didn’t occur that we wanted or expected can have far greater prominence to us than the partial desires which were met.  And, we (often unconsciously) can move the goal posts such that progress have led popping champagne bottles just a short time ago leaves us underwhelmed and dissatisfied.

We see this at play with the current legislative session in Richmond where Democratic lawmakers are working on (and passing) record-setting numbers of progressive bills.

The Democratic legislators are working on and passing measures that cover almost all arenas of legitimate government engagement. And, writ large, things are moving in a better direction.  For any involved with or watching Virginia politics for more than few years, the extent and rapidity of progress being seen right now might best have been described as pipe-dream fantasies just a few years ago. That’s something that’s often forgotten (or not known in the first place), but is an important point to keep in mind.

Even so, understandably, many of us are frustrated to not see happening what we think is required, what we hoped to see. Focusing on the “missing” can lead us to ignore the “progress,” while instead bemoaning the fact that we haven’t achieved the “perfect” (or, at least, much better). In turn, this can lead us to disappointment and disillusionment – even anger – with the relatively limited progress, obviously falling short of “perfection.”  To be clear, it is a hard balance to celebrate “progress” while maintaining the battle to achieve what we know and feel needs to be done. Thus, while overselling/over-celebrating “progress” can be damaging, so too can failing to acknowledge and celebrate what progress is being made.

Consider that the legislative session seems possible – although certainly not guaranteed, given the likelihood of tough negotiations between the more progressive House of Delegates and the more conservative State Senate – to end this session with in two weeks with:

•  Marijuana decriminalization.
  • Just a few years ago, decriminalization would have been seen as a tremendous win, yet the goal posts were moved to full legalization, with developments around the nation and the Democrats winning the trifecta of the Governor’s Office and majorities in the House and Senate.
• At least five gun control measures
  • Good news, but…disappointment in that significant restrictions on (let alone an outright ban on) assault weapons are unlikely to pass.
• Mandates for a clean energy transition (including solar, wind, energy efficiency, use of a social cost of carbon (SCC) for future energy infrastructure decisions)
  • Even as Dominion Energy will still be able to extract excess profits and the targeted time frame for the clean energy transition is slower than the economics warrant and the climate crisis requires.
• And so on and so on and …

Let’s be clear that the Virginia legislature packs a lot of work into a very short time.  Between now and March 7th, the end of the session, a lot will happen and some of the progress could be wiped away. Writ large, the Democratic Senate caucus is older and more conservative than the House, and the Senate Democratic majority (21-19) is much smaller than the House Democratic majority (55-45). Thus, while the House passed all eight of the Governor’s gun control package, the Senate only passed five.  And on the Virginia Clean Economy Act, the House version is stronger than the Senate version. In general, House measures – not surprisingly, given that body’s makeup – represent more progress than Senate measures.  The question is, how do negotiations between the House and Senate play out over the final two weeks, and what are the results of this potentially ugly “sausage making?”

Still, even with all this, I’d argue that our underpaid (come on, Delegates are paid $17,640 per year and Senators a whopping $18k) legislators are — imperfectly, haltingly in some cases — getting plenty of good stuff done, including much that we have been advocating for and dreaming for many years.  Even as we yearn for, advocate for, and fight for much better, it is worth pausing for a moment to recognize and appreciate better.

As Lowell put it,

When Democrats are in charge, we actually make progress (albeit imperfect). When Republicans are in charge…we don’t make progress.

Virginia elected Democrats.

And, Democrats are getting things done.

We are making progress together.

Let’s not forget that.

Shallow language has, for too long, hindered our understanding of and valuing of core institutions and capacities. “Bureaucracy” and “bureaucrats” are viewed negatively by most even though these institutions and people, with failures and inadequacies to be acknowledged and reformed, do work that enables society to function. In the past few years, “Deep State” has become an even-more pejorative term of discussion (for one political party). A simple fact, however, is that bureaucracy, bureaucrats, and the Deep State truly matter for a well-functioning society — providing expertise to support decision-making and the capacity to execute direction effectively. And, a “Deep State” means multiple layers of existing and developing capacity enabling tackling of complex issues and ability for continuity of function even amid personnel turnover and other disruption.

Engagement related to energy and climate-related issues in Virginia over the several few years (especially into the 2020 legislative session) is driving home that:

Whether discussions of electric school buses or looking at the potential implications of and options for the Virginia Clean Energy Act, there is a striking element that comes forth in discussions with firms, elected officials, interest groups, and activists: almost never is a government office pointed to as the key organization providing analytical support to decision-makers and/or the critical information resource. Expertise seems to come, all too often, from interested parties (contributors, businesses, non-profits). This does not seem how government should work.

Let’s be clear, there are many competent people and offices in the Commonwealth’s government (in DMME, the Attorney General’s office, the State Corporation Commission and thus the requirement for a “deep(er) state”). Yet, there are clear gaps and shortfalls that are made quite clear during the legislative cycle when, for example, the lead discussant (who legislators turned to to ask questions and get clarifications) for an electric school bus program was a Dominion lobbyist rather than a government (whether legislative or executive) policy expert. This is repeated time after time — in public session, rather open work groups, and behind the scenes conclaves.

One role for such a deep(er) state would be for providing quality, up-to-date information to support governmental decision-making and public understanding. Searching for this when it comes to energy issues quickly leaves one shaking one’s head.

The Dept. of Mines, Minerals, and Energy “energy resources” page lays out Virginia’s “natural resources”. Some lines from that:

The amount of energy produced from Virginia’s resources accounts for less than one-half of the total amount of energy consumed in the State (VEPT, 2007) …

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated total energy consumption in Virginia during 2004 to be about 2,558 trillion Btu (British thermal unit).  …

EIA) estimated total energy consumption in Virginia during 2004 to be about 2,558 trillion Btu (British thermal unit).  During the same annual period, the total energy produced as fossil fuels mined in Virginia was about 722 trillion Btu, about 28% of the amount consumed …

Based on EIA estimates of power generation during 2005, coal-fired power plants remained the most important source of electricity in Virginia, with nuclear power generation a close second 

Notice anything odd here? “2007 … 2004 … 2005”? Sorry, but WTF?!?!? Amid a rapidly changing energy world, DMME is providing 15 year old information as the base (ground truth?) information Virginia’s energy resources. And, by the way, coal is not the “most important source of electricity in Virginia”, it hasn’t been for many years and (I write assuredly) it won’t ever be that again. To get more accurate information on this, we shouldn’t have to go to the New York Times.

DMME sends people to Virginia Tech’s Virginia Energy Patterns and Trends Electronic Database as a go-to for “up-to-date information on energy production, distribution, and use within the state of Virginia”. Up-to-date as of what happened in 2006. VEPT is within the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, which was created by legislative mandate in 1977 with many missions including the “Dissemination of coal and energy research information and data to users in the Commonwealth”.

Scratching my head, sure that I was missing something, I asked a number Virginia and Virginia-focused energy wonks the following question: “Who do you see as the Virginia equivalent of the Energy Information Administration (EIA)? With charter to do independent analysis and reporting to support Governor/Admin & Legislature?”

A response from an expert (with numerous articles and oft-cited by others):

There certainly isn’t an equivalent. SCC, DMME, AG, and DEQ all have pieces. And I couldn’t tell you the extent of who does what or even how to find the information. Not helpful, I know.

Another more simply put it

“We don’t believe there is an equivalent to EIA for Virginia.”

Despite the niches with specific expertise, this gap seems to handicap — seriously — Virginia’s ability to develop best-in-class policy paths forward.

Staying solely within the energy domain, critical as we seek to foster increased prosperity while reducing pollution (especially climate) impacts and improving resiliency, think about legislation the legislature has been considering and is working on:

• Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) with mandates for eliminating carbon emissions within the power (electricity sector) with a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) mandate, energy efficiency requirements, and other elements with decades of interaction and impact on the Virginia economy, billions of dollars at stake, and literally (due to pollution impacts on health) life and death implications.
• Offshore Wind (as much as 5.2 gigawatts of capacity) as in the public interest with a potential direct investment implication in excess of 10 billion dollars and 10,000s of jobs.
• Electric School Bus (ESB) program authorization with significant public-private relationship management, 1,000s of jobs, and many billions of dollars of implications.
• And numerous other energy(-related) bills such as the Green New Deal, Solar Freedom, and so on and so on.

These are pieces of legislation with: many (MANY) billions of dollars at stake; 10,000s of jobs at play; and, significant health and pollution implications. Across all of these, something notable: the most significant voices and influencers are almost always not government experts but lobbyists and representatives of special interest groups (from polluting business to environmental activist). Am I alone in thinking that this is not how the People’s business should be done? Am I alone in seeing a need for augmented Virginia government expertise, with a true center for research and expertise to Administrative and legislative requirements while providing more accurate information to government officials, businesses, and citizens?

For development of better energy and climate policy and legislative proposals and decision-making, there is a simple truth:

Virginia needs a Deep(er) State

I appreciate, seriously, the efforts to develop, draw attention to, pass the sort of legislation that required in our times.  Within my space, two bills have represented two overlapping visions and paths for moving Virginia toward a cleaner, climate-sensible future: the Virginia Green New Deal (GND-VA) and the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA).

The Fairfax County Public School (FCPS) Facilities Planning Advisory Council (FPAC) focused on transportation issues in its 4 February meeting and, within that, discussed some issues related to an Electric School Bus (ESB) program.

The Old Dominion’s political system and culture is often referred to as The Virginia Way which is nostalgically promoted as one “of honor, gentility and democracy”. Just like “MAGA” glosses over (ignores or even embraces) ugly parts of American history,

 In reality, this ideology bred a corrupt political class, a runaway electricity company, a university that reflected the values of donors and a school system that suffered from cronyism. This Virginia Way prevented rather than promoted the success of its stated democratic ideals.

From The Dominion Tax being whitewashed by captive legislators (many Virginia GOP) in The Dominion Scam to allowing construction of and charging ratepayers for unnecessary fossil gas power plants to building momentum for a blanket check for Dominion excess profiteering from Offshore Wind, that “runaway electricity company” certainly seems to leverage political power to boost significantly profitability. Perhaps a better description of the Old Dominion’s political structure would be “The Dominion Way” since, like Lolo, ‘whatever Dominion wants, Dominion gets’.

In the Commonwealth, sometimes it is difficult to determine whether it is the regulated utility or the regulators driving public policy. Sometimes there is greater clarity. School bus seat belts is one example.

School bus seat belts have long been a controversial and emotional issue. Analysis has been conflicted as to whether seat belts pass reasonable cost-benefit analyses (see below). Virginia does not require school buses to have seat belts (though at least one school district, Henrico County, requires them). While even without seat belts, school buses remain the safest way to transport K-12 students to school on the roads, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) “recommended that 42 states that don’t require for lap and shoulder belts on large school buses add such a requirement.” (Though, to be clear, the NHTSA does not require seat belts.) Even so, when considering school budgets and safety issues, at least some School Boards (and/or the professional staffs) have balked at the $7,000-$11,000 cost for installing seat belts (or roughly 10% additional cost to the standard diesel-powered school bus) even in the face of the NTSB recommendation and some (mainly parent) passionate citizen activist calls for them.

Enter Dominion and the Dominion Electric School Bus program. The Dominion-provided ESBs will have seat belts. Point blank. In fact, Dominion will not partner with any school system that doesn’t allow seat belts.

one of the requirements to participate in our program is the school buses must be equipped with three point safety belts. Virginia does not require seatbelts in our buses, but safety is our top priority at Dominion and we’ve said if you want to participate in our program you have got to be willing to install seatbelts on the new buses moving forward. [Dan Weekley, Dominion, 27 Jan 2020]

While this has generated enthusiasm about the Dominion ESB program, few seem to have noticed or remarked on how this is a blunt example of The Dominion Way. Leveraging resources gained via excessive profiteering from ratepayers, Dominion is dictating to public entities items that are quite explicitly public policy issues and that merit determination by public officials, accountable to the public, after discussions open to and engaging stakeholders.

To be clear, no matter where one falls in a ‘to seat belt or not to seat belt’ debate, it should concern all Virginians when a private Corporation is able to (quite literally) dictate public policy and government investment.

Fossil-fools attack Green New Deal (GND) proposals by focusing on (exaggerated and unrealistic) cost analysis without any serious assessment of the benefit streams. As with any investment, looking at the price paid without any examination of return secured is an absurdity and such analysis shouldn’t be taken seriously, should be rejected out of hand.

Regretfully, though not as seriously, proponents of (clean-energy, climate-addressing) action often are cautious and circumspect in responding to fossil-foolish propaganda. And, such caution can lead to understating benefit streams and weaken the case (public support) for action.

Over 20 years ago, General Motors introduced the EV1. This all-electric car quickly won passionate enthusiasm from its drivers and seemed like a wedge into creating a clean electric vehicle future. Just a few years in, GM killed the program (literally crushing the vehicles) and the EV1 disappeared from the streets.

As explored in Who Killed The Electric Car?, a complex set of players, motivations, and actions undermined EV1 deployment and viability of success which combined to ‘kill the electric car’.

Electric Vehicles are deploying, around the world, in increasing numbers and the ‘case’ for them mounts with every passing moment. Even with this, real challenges to EV deployment continue from fossil-foolish efforts to squash electric vehicles, misguided commentators with a poor understanding of EV Benefits, to buyers finding it hard to buy an EV as dealers don’t stock them, salesmen don’t understand them, and so on. Thus, the saga of “Who Killed The Electric Car” still has relevancy.

Buses are an electric vehicle arena seeing electrifying growth. And, now, electric school bus (ESB) deployment seems on the cusp of moving from one-off, small-scale demonstrations to mass deployment.

Even so, key ESB players seem — perhaps inadvertently — involved in the same sort of actions that helped ‘kill the electric car’. Thomas Built Buses (a Daimler subsidiary using Proterra technology) is the provider for Dominion Power’s Virginia ESB demonstration program, with 50 ESBs already ordered and potentially well over 10,000 to follow in the coming decade.

A key reason for large vehicle (especially school bus) electrification is the displacement of diesel fuels (with a multitude of value streams deriving from reduced diesel usage ranging from reduced costs and pollution to improved student health and educational performance). The benefits are quite clear:

With ESBs on the cusp of real momentum, a reasonable expectation would be that key industry players supportive of ESB deployment would highlight the benefits of moving off diesel fuels and that only those against ESB deployment would be dismissing the implications of burning diesel fuels. Yet, consider what greets visitors to ThomasBuiltBuses.com:

To make clear, the following video is not about “corrected … myths” but about providing misdirection about the risks of diesel fuels to undermine efforts to electrify school bus fleets.

One has to ask whether Thomas Built Buses is serious about electric school bus electrification or, in fact, is intent on being featured in a future documentary about “Who Killed The Electric School Bus?”

asdf