committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-23--Can “Sponge City” stop China’s deadly floods?

While 2020 is known as the year of the “ Rat ” in the Chinese Calendar , every year could be called the year of the “ Flood.
” For 500 years , China ’ s rivers have gone through catastrophic flooding cycles – killing many and causing millions in water damage .
While China has tried the more typical solutions of dams and levees , a more unique approach is being pursued in the city of Chongqing .
Chongqing , which has been dubbed by some as “ Sponge City ” , has undertaken a massive effort to install @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and eventually redistribute rainwater back to the Yangtze and Jialing rivers .
“ The ‘ sponge city ’ initiative , launched in 2015 , is an attempt to reverse that — soak up heavy precipitation and release it slowly into the river and reservoirs .
Using features such as rooftop gardens , scenic wetland parks , permeable pavements and underground storage tanks , the plan is to eventually absorb or reuse 70 % of the rainwater that falls on four-fifths of China ’ s urban land.
” Incredibly rapid urbanization without proper planning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led to more frequent floods in areas where they historically did not happen as often .
“ Wuhan was once known as the ‘ city of 100 lakes , ’ a reference to its giant flood plain which used to absorb the river ’ s annual floods .
About three-quarters of those lakes were filled in for construction in the past thirty years.
” As China tries to grapple with its floods , more and more levees are being built along the Yangtze in particular .
The length of those levees now adds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Great Wall of China .
And what ’ s worse , while the “ Sponge City ” idea sounds great , some Chinese citizens are claiming that the idea isn ’ t so fantastic after all .
“ ‘ The developers cut down the forest and destroy the grass , build houses , and then plant decorative trees so it becomes a ‘ sponge city ’ and they make a bunch of money , ’ said Zuo , a taxi driver in Chongqing who also would only give his family name.
” Still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that the government is even trying to adapt to the floods through Sponge City and other initiatives is a good sign .
Only time will tell if these Sponge Cities are worth it .
To read the full article in Bloomberg Green , click here .

While 2020 is known as the year of the “Rat” in the Chinese Calendar, every year could be called the year of the “Flood.”
For 500 years, China’s rivers have gone through catastrophic flooding cycles – killing many and causing millions in water damage.
While China has tried the more typical solutions of dams and levees, a more unique approach is being pursued in the city of Chongqing.
Chongqing, which has been dubbed by some as “Sponge City”, has undertaken a massive effort to install systems that will collect, reuse, and eventually redistribute rainwater back to the Yangtze and Jialing rivers.
As reported in Bloomberg Green:
“The ‘sponge city’ initiative, launched in 2015, is an attempt to reverse that — soak up heavy precipitation and release it slowly into the river and reservoirs. Using features such as rooftop gardens, scenic wetland parks, permeable pavements and underground storage tanks, the plan is to eventually absorb or reuse 70% of the rainwater that falls on four-fifths of China’s urban land.”
But natural floods aren’t China’s only problem.
Incredibly rapid urbanization without proper planning from China’s Communist government has led to more frequent floods in areas where they historically did not happen as often.
Bloomberg Green explains further:
“Wuhan was once known as the ‘city of 100 lakes,’ a reference to its giant flood plain which used to absorb the river’s annual floods. About three-quarters of those lakes were filled in for construction in the past thirty years.”
As China tries to grapple with its floods, more and more levees are being built along the Yangtze in particular. The length of those levees now adds up to a greater length than the Great Wall of China.
And what’s worse, while the “Sponge City” idea sounds great, some Chinese citizens are claiming that the idea isn’t so fantastic after all.
“‘The developers cut down the forest and destroy the grass, build houses, and then plant decorative trees so it becomes a ‘sponge city’ and they make a bunch of money,’ said Zuo, a taxi driver in Chongqing who also would only give his family name.”
Still, some analysts and environmentalists say the fact that the government is even trying to adapt to the floods through Sponge City and other initiatives is a good sign.
Only time will tell if these Sponge Cities are worth it.
To read the full article in Bloomberg Green, click here.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-24--A study that called for a ban on gas appliances misled Californians

A study published in April by the Fielding School of Public Health at the University of California Los Angeles claims residential natural gas causes dangerous indoor and outdoor air pollution , and proposes to eliminate gas from California homes .
But the study , Effects of Residential Gas Appliances on Indoor and Outdoor Air Quality and Public Health in California , lacks accuracy and perspective , as discussed in my paper criticizing the study that was published in June .
Natural gas is a low-cost , nonpolluting fuel for heating , cooking , industrial use , and generating electricity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ stoves are the only appliances that might be a concern for indoor air in California .
California law requires furnaces , water heaters , and other gas appliances to vent exhaust to outside air .
The UCLA study claimed that gas appliances cause harmful indoor pollution but did not develop any new data .
Instead , the study used models and hypothetical cooking scenarios to claim that “ concentrations of CO and NO2 during cooking events can exceed levels set by national and California-based ambient air quality standards.
” Carbon monoxide ( CO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if breathed in high concentrations , can be hazardous to health .
However , the UCLA study itself did not find hazardous indoor CO levels from gas stoves .
The model results summarized in Table 2-2 of the study did not find that CO levels exceed either California or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) standards .
Modern gas stoves , when professionally installed and maintained , do not pose a carbon monoxide risk for today ’ s homes .
Nitrogen is not part of natural gas fuel , but NO2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which break down nitrogen in the air .
The UCLA models projected that if a stove and oven were used simultaneously for two hours of cooking , indoor levels of NO2 could reach 34 parts per billion ( ppb ) , exceeding the California Ambient Air Quality Standard ( CAAQS ) of 30 ppb .
But it ’ s not clear that NO2 concentrations of 34 ppb are hazardous to health .
The EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standard ( NAAQS ) for NO2 is 53 ppb .
The EPA states that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ No health impacts are expected for air quality in this range.
” In addition , the studies cited by the UCLA paper did not find evidence that NO2 emissions from gas stoves are unhealthy .
For example , UCLA cites Dales ( 2008 ) , which states : “ Whether chronic exposure to low concentrations of nitrogen dioxide from indoor sources increases the risk of respiratory illnesses is unclear.
” Contrary to claims by the study , residents should have confidence that modern gas stoves do not pose an indoor air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questionable model projections on nitrogen dioxide , with no evidence on carbon monoxide or other indoor pollutants , and with only inconclusive support from the scientific literature , the UCLA paper urges the elimination of all California gas stoves .
The second part of the UCLA paper claims that gas appliances generate harmful PM2.5 particle pollution .
It claims that if California residential appliances were transitioned to electric , the reduction in PM2.5 emissions would result in 354 fewer deaths and reduce health costs by approximately $ 3.5 billion each year .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2.5 microns in diameter , smaller than the eye can see .
For several years , the EPA has warned that inhalation of small particles is associated with premature death .
The agency warns that death may occur within a few hours of inhalation of PM2.5 , or may be caused by long-term inhalation over decades .
In 2013 , EPA Policy Advisor Amanda Brown stated that between 130,000 and 320,000 Americans died prematurely in 2005 due to particle pollution , or between 6 and 15 percent of total US deaths , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particle pollution triggers heart failure , respiratory failure , and other causes of mortality .
If a senior citizen dies on his 70th birthday , and a coroner determines heart failure to be the cause of death , the EPA may regard this death as “ premature ” and caused by particle pollution .
Today , our nation ’ s air is remarkably clean .
Health incidents from serious air pollution are rare .
The EPA ’ s six criteria air pollutants , lead , nitrogen dioxide , sulfur dioxide , ozone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 77 percent in 2019 compared to 1980 .
These improvements in air quality have been achieved with U.S. residents using over 50 percent more natural gas today than in 1980 .
PM2.5 pollution is typically below the EPA national standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter , down 43 percent since 2000 .
Twelve micrograms per cubic meter is not very much .
Dr. James Enstrom , a retired researcher from the UCLA School of Public Health , points out that a person breathing in 12 micrograms of small particles per cubic meter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grams , or less than one teaspoon full , of these microscopic particles over an 80-year lifespan .
The EPA ’ s assertion that this tiny dose of particles causes premature death is not credible .
How do the EPA , the California Air Resources Board ( CARB ) , and other organizations conclude that thousands of Americans die prematurely each year from particle pollution ?
No coroner ever attributes a cause of death to small particles .
Instead , the EPA relies on epidemiological observational studies that find statistical associations between particle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for associations between exposure to an agent and appearance of disease in a population .
An example is the Doll and Hill study in the 1950s that found that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer in a population of 41,000 British medical doctors .
The EPA has concluded that associations found in epidemiological studies show that inhalation of small particles causes premature death .
The Harvard Six Cities study of 1993 and the American Cancer Society study of 1995 are two of the studies that form the basis of EPA small particle science .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk of less than 20 percent ( RR=1.2 ) .
An increase in death rates of less than 20 percent is almost statistically indistinguishable from zero .
In comparison , the Doll and Hill study found smokers had 10 times the rate of lung cancer of non-smokers , a relative risk of RR=10 .
The weak association ( small relative risk ) between death and particle pollution that the EPA judges to be causal could be due to other factors in measured populations , or even random chance .
Other studies have found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and death .
For example , Cox ( 2017 ) analyzed small particles and death of persons 75 years or older in Boston and Los Angeles during periods from 2007 to 2013 .
The study found that ambient PM2.5 concentrations did not predict average elderly mortality rates in either Boston or Los Angeles .
The underlying data from the Harvard Six Cities study and the American Cancer Society study have never been released .
As a result , other scientists are not able to replicate and verify the results of these studies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ) , titled “ Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science.
” This proposed rule is a follow-on effort from a 2018 NPRM intended to base regulatory policy on scientific studies which release their underlying data for reanalysis and critique .
This is certainly needed in the case of epidemiological studies claiming associations between low levels of particle pollution and death .
The UCLA paper projects that , if gas appliances were replaced by electric appliances in California buildings , then outdoor levels of PM2.5 would be reduced by 0.11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particulate pollution is dominated by other sources of particles .
On January 1 , 2018 , California legalized the recreational use of marijuana .
A person who smokes a single marijuana joint or a single tobacco cigarette inhales more particles than breathing a year ’ s worth of particles in California air .
In just two days , the 2017 Napa Valley fire produced an estimated 10,000 tons of PM2.5 , the amount emitted by California ’ s 35 million vehicles in a year .
Eliminating gas appliances from 13 million residences would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than one percent .
Such a small change in air quality could not be detected by any measurement system .
It appears that the real goal of the UCLA paper is to support climate change policies with arguments about projected improvements in air quality and illusory health benefits .
The paper states that natural gas is primarily methane , “ a potent greenhouse gas ” and that “ buildings are responsible for an estimated 25 percent of GHG [ greenhouse gas ] emissions in California.
” But California gas appliances are an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only 0.33 percent of world natural gas consumption .
If all California residential appliances were converted from gas to electric , the effect on global gas usage and global greenhouse gas emissions would be negligible .
While gas and electric appliances both have advantages , usage shows that California residents overwhelmingly prefer gas .
Gas stoves offer better temperature control than electric stoves .
Consumer Affairs Research points out that gas dryers use 30 percent less energy than electric dryers .
Gas water heaters heat water twice as fast as electric water heaters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appliances is lower cost of operation .
Think Energy reports that homeowners can save $ 1,000 to $ 2,000 annually with a gas furnace compared to an electric furnace .
Water heater savings can be $ 200 annually , and dryer and stove savings can each be $ 100 annually , when using gas instead of electric .
On September 10 , 2018 , then California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100 , mandating that the state obtain 100 percent of its electricity from “ clean energy sources ” by 2045 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rapidly rising electricity prices as more renewable energy is added to the power system .
Wind and solar can not replace traditional coal , natural gas , and nuclear power plants if continuity in the supply of electricity is to be maintained .
Wind and solar are intermittent generators .
Wind output varies greatly from high output to zero , depending upon weather conditions .
Solar output is only available about six hours each day when the sun is overhead and disappears completely on cloudy days or after a snowfall .
Hydro power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even this source is insufficient in years of low snow runoff or drought .
Because of intermittency , utilities can only count on about 10 percent of the nameplate capacity of a wind or solar facility as an addition to power system capacity .
For example , wind output in March , 2014 , for the state of Texas varied from over 8,000 megawatts to under 500 megawatts in a few hours .
To try to achieve “ deep decarbonization , ” California will need to keep 90 percent of traditional power plants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wind and solar .
Traditional power plants will be run inefficiently at low utilization with priority given to renewables .
Total system capacity must double and triple as 100 percent renewable output is approached .
A 2016 study by Brick and Thernstrom projected that California ’ s power capacity would need to rise from 53.6 gigawatts ( GW ) to 90.5 GW at 50 percent renewable output .
Capacity would need rise to 123.6 GW to achieve 80 percent renewable output .
As a result of rising system capacity , Brick and Thernstrom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renewable penetration , wholesale electricity prices would need to rise from 5.2 cents per kilowatt-hour ( cents/kW-hr ) to 9.6 cents/kW-hr .
For 80 percent renewable penetration , prices would rise to 14 cents/kW-hr , approaching a tripling of wholesale electricity prices .
Green energy advocates recognize renewable intermittency and propose grid-scale batteries to solve the problem .
They claim that large-scale commercial batteries will be able to store power during high levels of renewable output and then deliver power to the grid when wind and solar output is low .
But batteries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the large seasonal variation in renewable output .
Wind and solar output in California in December and January is less than half of summer output .
Today ’ s commercial batteries are rated to deliver stored electricity for only two hours or ten hours .
No batteries exist that can store electricity in the summer and then deliver in the winter when renewable output is very low .
In 2019 , California residential electricity prices were 19 cents per kilowatt-hour , 47 percent higher than the national average .
California rates increased 30.4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than twice as fast as national prices .
In addition , California mandates for 100 percent renewable energy will double or triple electricity prices in the next two decades .
More than 30 cities covering almost 10 percent of California population now prohibit gas appliances in new housing .
The elimination of gas appliances and rising electricity prices will cause a painful loss of standard of living , particularly in low-income households .
“ The UCLA study is a disservice to the hardworking people who are trying to make ends meet during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nathanson , Executive Director for The Empowerment Alliance .
“ Low cost , abundant , domestic natural gas not only helps American families stretch their household budgets when it comes to more efficient appliances but creates American jobs and bolsters national security.
” Removing gas from California homes will not measurably improve either indoor or outdoor air quality .
Nor will it measurably reduce global warming .
But residents will lose the flexibility , efficiency , and low-cost operation of gas appliances .
In addition , homeowners will be exposed to the full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California residents should reject bans on gas appliances .
Originally published in the August edition of The American Oil & Gas Reporter .

A study published in April by the Fielding School of Public Health at the University of California Los Angeles claims residential natural gas causes dangerous indoor and outdoor air pollution, and proposes to eliminate gas from California homes. But the study, Effects of Residential Gas Appliances on Indoor and Outdoor Air Quality and Public Health in California, lacks accuracy and perspective, as discussed in my paper criticizing the study that was published in June. Natural gas is a low-cost, nonpolluting fuel for heating, cooking, industrial use, and generating electricity.
Indoor Pollution
In the case of indoor pollution, stoves are the only appliances that might be a concern for indoor air in California. California law requires furnaces, water heaters, and other gas appliances to vent exhaust to outside air.
The UCLA study claimed that gas appliances cause harmful indoor pollution but did not develop any new data. Instead, the study used models and hypothetical cooking scenarios to claim that “concentrations of CO and NO2 during cooking events can exceed levels set by national and California-based ambient air quality standards.” Carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), if breathed in high concentrations, can be hazardous to health.
However, the UCLA study itself did not find hazardous indoor CO levels from gas stoves. The model results summarized in Table 2-2 of the study did not find that CO levels exceed either California or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Modern gas stoves, when professionally installed and maintained, do not pose a carbon monoxide risk for today’s homes.
Nitrogen is not part of natural gas fuel, but NO2 can be created by stove burner flames, which break down nitrogen in the air. The UCLA models projected that if a stove and oven were used simultaneously for two hours of cooking, indoor levels of NO2 could reach 34 parts per billion (ppb), exceeding the California Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) of 30 ppb.
But it’s not clear that NO2 concentrations of 34 ppb are hazardous to health. The EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for NO2 is 53 ppb. The EPA states that, for NO2 levels below 50 ppb, “No health impacts are expected for air quality in this range.”
In addition, the studies cited by the UCLA paper did not find evidence that NO2 emissions from gas stoves are unhealthy. For example, UCLA cites Dales (2008), which states: “Whether chronic exposure to low concentrations of nitrogen dioxide from indoor sources increases the risk of respiratory illnesses is unclear.” Contrary to claims by the study, residents should have confidence that modern gas stoves do not pose an indoor air pollution health risk.
Based on only questionable model projections on nitrogen dioxide, with no evidence on carbon monoxide or other indoor pollutants, and with only inconclusive support from the scientific literature, the UCLA paper urges the elimination of all California gas stoves.
Outdoor Pollution
The second part of the UCLA paper claims that gas appliances generate harmful PM2.5 particle pollution. It claims that if California residential appliances were transitioned to electric, the reduction in PM2.5 emissions would result in 354 fewer deaths and reduce health costs by approximately $3.5 billion each year.
The EPA classifies PM2.5 as particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter, smaller than the eye can see. For several years, the EPA has warned that inhalation of small particles is associated with premature death. The agency warns that death may occur within a few hours of inhalation of PM2.5, or may be caused by long-term inhalation over decades.
In 2013, EPA Policy Advisor Amanda Brown stated that between 130,000 and 320,000 Americans died prematurely in 2005 due to particle pollution, or between 6 and 15 percent of total US deaths, an incredible claim.
The EPA claims that particle pollution triggers heart failure, respiratory failure, and other causes of mortality. If a senior citizen dies on his 70th birthday, and a coroner determines heart failure to be the cause of death, the EPA may regard this death as “premature” and caused by particle pollution.
Today, our nation’s air is remarkably clean. Health incidents from serious air pollution are rare. The EPA’s six criteria air pollutants, lead, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and particulates, are down a combined 77 percent in 2019 compared to 1980.
These improvements in air quality have been achieved with U.S. residents using over 50 percent more natural gas today than in 1980. PM2.5 pollution is typically below the EPA national standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter, down 43 percent since 2000.
Twelve micrograms per cubic meter is not very much. Dr. James Enstrom, a retired researcher from the UCLA School of Public Health, points out that a person breathing in 12 micrograms of small particles per cubic meter of air would inhale less than 5 grams, or less than one teaspoon full, of these microscopic particles over an 80-year lifespan. The EPA’s assertion that this tiny dose of particles causes premature death is not credible.
How do the EPA, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and other organizations conclude that thousands of Americans die prematurely each year from particle pollution? No coroner ever attributes a cause of death to small particles. Instead, the EPA relies on epidemiological observational studies that find statistical associations between particle pollution and death.
Epidemiological studies look for associations between exposure to an agent and appearance of disease in a population. An example is the Doll and Hill study in the 1950s that found that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer in a population of 41,000 British medical doctors. The EPA has concluded that associations found in epidemiological studies show that inhalation of small particles causes premature death.
The Harvard Six Cities study of 1993 and the American Cancer Society study of 1995 are two of the studies that form the basis of EPA small particle science. These studies found an increase in relative risk of less than 20 percent (RR=1.2). An increase in death rates of less than 20 percent is almost statistically indistinguishable from zero. In comparison, the Doll and Hill study found smokers had 10 times the rate of lung cancer of non-smokers, a relative risk of RR=10. The weak association (small relative risk) between death and particle pollution that the EPA judges to be causal could be due to other factors in measured populations, or even random chance.
Other studies have found no causal association between small particle pollution and death. For example, Cox (2017) analyzed small particles and death of persons 75 years or older in Boston and Los Angeles during periods from 2007 to 2013. The study found that ambient PM2.5 concentrations did not predict average elderly mortality rates in either Boston or Los Angeles.
The underlying data from the Harvard Six Cities study and the American Cancer Society study have never been released. As a result, other scientists are not able to replicate and verify the results of these studies.
The EPA recently issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), titled “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science.” This proposed rule is a follow-on effort from a 2018 NPRM intended to base regulatory policy on scientific studies which release their underlying data for reanalysis and critique. This is certainly needed in the case of epidemiological studies claiming associations between low levels of particle pollution and death.
The UCLA paper projects that, if gas appliances were replaced by electric appliances in California buildings, then outdoor levels of PM2.5 would be reduced by 0.11 micrograms per cubic meter. But airborne particulate pollution is dominated by other sources of particles.
On January 1, 2018, California legalized the recreational use of marijuana. A person who smokes a single marijuana joint or a single tobacco cigarette inhales more particles than breathing a year’s worth of particles in California air. In just two days, the 2017 Napa Valley fire produced an estimated 10,000 tons of PM2.5, the amount emitted by California’s 35 million vehicles in a year.
Eliminating gas appliances from 13 million residences would reduce California outdoor airborne particle pollution by less than one percent. Such a small change in air quality could not be detected by any measurement system.
Climate Concerns and Rising Energy Costs for California Homes
It appears that the real goal of the UCLA paper is to support climate change policies with arguments about projected improvements in air quality and illusory health benefits. The paper states that natural gas is primarily methane, “a potent greenhouse gas” and that “buildings are responsible for an estimated 25 percent of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions in California.”
But California gas appliances are an insignificant part of world energy usage, only 0.33 percent of world natural gas consumption. If all California residential appliances were converted from gas to electric, the effect on global gas usage and global greenhouse gas emissions would be negligible.
While gas and electric appliances both have advantages, usage shows that California residents overwhelmingly prefer gas. Gas stoves offer better temperature control than electric stoves. Consumer Affairs Research points out that gas dryers use 30 percent less energy than electric dryers. Gas water heaters heat water twice as fast as electric water heaters.
But the biggest advantage of gas appliances is lower cost of operation. Think Energy reports that homeowners can save $1,000 to $2,000 annually with a gas furnace compared to an electric furnace. Water heater savings can be $200 annually, and dryer and stove savings can each be $100 annually, when using gas instead of electric.
On September 10, 2018, then California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100, mandating that the state obtain 100 percent of its electricity from “clean energy sources” by 2045. But Californians will experience the shock of rapidly rising electricity prices as more renewable energy is added to the power system.
Wind and solar cannot replace traditional coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants if continuity in the supply of electricity is to be maintained. Wind and solar are intermittent generators. Wind output varies greatly from high output to zero, depending upon weather conditions. Solar output is only available about six hours each day when the sun is overhead and disappears completely on cloudy days or after a snowfall. Hydro power can replace traditional plant output, but even this source is insufficient in years of low snow runoff or drought.
Because of intermittency, utilities can only count on about 10 percent of the nameplate capacity of a wind or solar facility as an addition to power system capacity. For example, wind output in March, 2014, for the state of Texas varied from over 8,000 megawatts to under 500 megawatts in a few hours.
To try to achieve “deep decarbonization,” California will need to keep 90 percent of traditional power plants as backup while adding increasing amounts of wind and solar. Traditional power plants will be run inefficiently at low utilization with priority given to renewables. Total system capacity must double and triple as 100 percent renewable output is approached.
A 2016 study by Brick and Thernstrom projected that California’s power capacity would need to rise from 53.6 gigawatts (GW) to 90.5 GW at 50 percent renewable output. Capacity would need rise to 123.6 GW to achieve 80 percent renewable output.
As a result of rising system capacity, Brick and Thernstrom concluded that, to achieve 50 percent renewable penetration, wholesale electricity prices would need to rise from 5.2 cents per kilowatt-hour (cents/kW-hr) to 9.6 cents/kW-hr. For 80 percent renewable penetration, prices would rise to 14 cents/kW-hr, approaching a tripling of wholesale electricity prices.
Green energy advocates recognize renewable intermittency and propose grid-scale batteries to solve the problem. They claim that large-scale commercial batteries will be able to store power during high levels of renewable output and then deliver power to the grid when wind and solar output is low.
But batteries are not a sufficient answer because of the large seasonal variation in renewable output. Wind and solar output in California in December and January is less than half of summer output. Today’s commercial batteries are rated to deliver stored electricity for only two hours or ten hours. No batteries exist that can store electricity in the summer and then deliver in the winter when renewable output is very low.
In 2019, California residential electricity prices were 19 cents per kilowatt-hour, 47 percent higher than the national average. California rates increased 30.4 percent over the last decade, rising more than twice as fast as national prices. In addition, California mandates for 100 percent renewable energy will double or triple electricity prices in the next two decades.
More than 30 cities covering almost 10 percent of California population now prohibit gas appliances in new housing. The elimination of gas appliances and rising electricity prices will cause a painful loss of standard of living, particularly in low-income households.
“The UCLA study is a disservice to the hardworking people who are trying to make ends meet during these tough times,” said Jim Nathanson, Executive Director for The Empowerment Alliance. “Low cost, abundant, domestic natural gas not only helps American families stretch their household budgets when it comes to more efficient appliances but creates American jobs and bolsters national security.”
Removing gas from California homes will not measurably improve either indoor or outdoor air quality. Nor will it measurably reduce global warming. But residents will lose the flexibility, efficiency, and low-cost operation of gas appliances. In addition, homeowners will be exposed to the full measure of rising state electricity prices. California residents should reject bans on gas appliances.
Originally published in the August edition of The American Oil & Gas Reporter.


California blackout scapegoating

It ’ s been 20 years since California ISO has had to order rolling blackouts .
The extraordinary move happened @ @ @ @ @ people because the state was not prepared for high electricity use during a heatwave .
@ @ @ @ @ investigation of how this happened .
No such investigation is needed .
Energy analysts have @ @ @ @ @ many years .
There is a lot of blame to spread around , including the @ @ @ @ @ as well as the people who voted for him and previous governors .
The really @ @ @ @ @ blackouts are going to be an ever-present reality in California for years to come .

It’s been 20 years since California ISO has had to order rolling blackouts. The extraordinary move happened on 8/14/2020 affecting millions of people because the state was not prepared for high electricity use during a heatwave.
The governor has ordered an investigation of how this happened. No such investigation is needed. Energy analysts have been predicting this moment for many years. There is a lot of blame to spread around, including the guy calling for an investigation as well as the people who voted for him and previous governors.
The really bad news is that these blackouts are going to be an ever-present reality in California for years to come.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-25--Kamala Harris and AOC craft crazy climate law

Kamala Harris did not mention climate change in her acceptance , but she did not have to .
She talked a lot about justice and justice is now code for climate .
Thanks to Harris and AOC , the strange beast of “ climate justice ” is now a big part of the Democrat ’ s agenda .
In fact the team of Harris and AOC has now codified the concept of climate justice .
Just before the convention they jointly dropped the into the Senate and House hoppers .
The Equity Act does not mean that everyone gets their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goal is for the Federal Government to adjust its investments and regulations to favor those who are supposedly most involved with climate change , or something like that .
The proposed law is so incoherent that it is hard to tell what it is for or what it does .
That it would cause an enormous amount of confusion is certain .
The problem is that the central concept in the law is extremely unclear .
Harris and AOC have continued the “ war on climate ” theme that AOC used when proposing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Climate Equity Act is about something called “ frontline communities.
” Apparently these so-called communities are on the frontline of climate change , or the frontline of stopping climate change , or some such .
It is very hard to tell .
Here is how the Kamala Harris puts it : “ COVID-19 has laid bare the realities of systemic racial , health , economic , and environmental injustices that persist in our country , ” said Sen. Harris .
“ The environment we live in can not be disentangled from the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more important than ever that we work toward a more just and equitable future .
That is why , as we combat the climate crisis and build a clean economy ; we must put justice and equity first .
I ’ m proud to partner with Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez on this comprehensive proposal to empower communities that have been neglected by policymakers for far too long .
The Climate Equity Act creates an administrative structure within the federal government to ensure that as we boldly address the climate crisis , our policies are founded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By ensuring that frontline community leaders and allies are playing a fundamental role in shaping and guiding federal policy , the Climate Equity Act helps hold the government accountable for creating a more just and equitable future as we tackle the climate crisis and build a clean economy .
‘ Frontline communities ’ are those that have experienced systemic socioeconomic disparities , environmental racism , and other forms of injustice , including low-income communities , indigenous peoples , and communities of color .
As the climate crisis continues , these communities and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rural communities , vulnerable elderly populations , unhoused populations , and people with disabilities and the women , youth , and future generations belonging to these communities — will be impacted first and hardest by the climate crisis .
The Climate Equity Act holds the government accountable to frontline communities when it considers a policy , regulation , or investment with a climate or environmental nexus which could broadly include direct policies to address the environment and climate change , but also transportation , housing , infrastructure , jobs , workforce development , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what a frontline community is .
It is here that the confusion begins .
This central concept , upon which everything turns , is deliberately not defined .
That definition is something to be done after the law is passed , by an Advisory Board no less .
I am not making this up .
There is however , this wildly over the top guidance in the : “ SEC .
205 .
DEFINITION OF FRONTLINE COMMUNITY .
( a ) IN GENERAL .
The Board of Advisors shall establish a definition of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purposes of this Act .
( b ) INCLUSIONS .
The definition under subsection ( a ) shall include , at a minimum ( 1 ) a community or population that has experienced systemic socioeconomic disparities , environmental injustice , or another form of injustice , including ( A ) a low-income community ; ( B ) an indigenous community ; and ( C ) a community of color ; ( 2 ) a community or population that is the most vulnerable and will be the most adversely impacted by environmental and climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( A ) a community or population described in paragraph ( 1 ) ; ( B ) a deindustrialized community ; ( C ) a depopulated rural community ; ( D ) a vulnerable elderly population ; ( E ) an unhoused population ; ( F ) individuals with disabilities ; and ( G ) a community that is economically dependent on fossil fuel industries ; and ( 3 ) the women , the youth , and all of the descendants of women or youth that are part of a community or population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 2 ) above.
” Note that section ( 2 ) ( F ) says that individuals with disabilities are by themselves frontline communities .
One person communities ?
And the Advisory Board can not change this inclusion .
In fact all they can do is expand the definition to include more people .
I have no idea what section ( 3 ) means .
It sounds as though if you are a descendent of a woman ( but not a man ? )
in a frontline community you are still in it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the women and youths in a frontline community are actually in it , not the older men ?
This section is truly incoherent .
Note too that in addition to communities there are also populations .
What the difference is I have no idea .
Perhaps communities have to be geographically together while populations do not , such as all the elderly people in New Mexico .
There is no way to tell from this incredibly vague and incoherent definition where the frontline communities are or who is in them .
The law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy and investment ( all grants , loans , etc . )
that affects any frontline community must be analyzed for its impact .
The negative impact must be minimized and the positive impact maximized .
In the case of investments the agency is required to favor frontline communities to the extent allowed by law .
Whether this includes federal contracts is unclear .
Given that there is no way to tell what a frontline community is , the result can only be chaos .
Agencies can not analyze what they can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big money cases the attempt is certain to wind up in Federal Court , which the proposed law specifically allows for .
This law is modeled after the infamous National Environmental Policy Act , which requires environmental impact analysis of all federal , federally financed , or approved , projects .
But in this case it is the economic impact on something undefined that must be analyzed and optimized .
This is the worst proposed law I have ever see .
It is both wildly overreaching and deeply incoherent .
But then the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That Kamala Harris and AOC have teamed up to produce this complete nonsense is an ominous sign of things to come if the Democrats prevail in November .

Kamala Harris did not mention climate change in her acceptance speech , but she did not have to. She talked a lot about justice and justice is now code for climate. Thanks to Harris and AOC, the strange beast of “climate justice” is now a big part of the Democrat’s agenda.
In fact the team of Harris and AOC has now codified the concept of climate justice. Just before the convention they jointly dropped the Climate Equity Act into the Senate and House hoppers.
The Equity Act does not mean that everyone gets their fair share of climate. The stated goal is for the Federal Government to adjust its investments and regulations to favor those who are supposedly most involved with climate change, or something like that.
The proposed law is so incoherent that it is hard to tell what it is for or what it does. That it would cause an enormous amount of confusion is certain.
The problem is that the central concept in the law is extremely unclear. Harris and AOC have continued the “war on climate” theme that AOC used when proposing the Green New Deal. Thus the Climate Equity Act is about something called “frontline communities.”
Apparently these so-called communities are on the frontline of climate change, or the frontline of stopping climate change, or some such. It is very hard to tell.
Here is how the Kamala Harris press release puts it:
“COVID-19 has laid bare the realities of systemic racial, health, economic, and environmental injustices that persist in our country,” said Sen. Harris. “The environment we live in cannot be disentangled from the rest of our lives, and it is more important than ever that we work toward a more just and equitable future. That is why, as we combat the climate crisis and build a clean economy; we must put justice and equity first. I’m proud to partner with Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez on this comprehensive proposal to empower communities that have been neglected by policymakers for far too long.
The Climate Equity Act creates an administrative structure within the federal government to ensure that as we boldly address the climate crisis, our policies are founded in equity and justice for frontline communities. By ensuring that frontline community leaders and allies are playing a fundamental role in shaping and guiding federal policy, the Climate Equity Act helps hold the government accountable for creating a more just and equitable future as we tackle the climate crisis and build a clean economy.
‘Frontline communities’ are those that have experienced systemic socioeconomic disparities, environmental racism, and other forms of injustice, including low-income communities, indigenous peoples, and communities of color. As the climate crisis continues, these communities and others, including deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, vulnerable elderly populations, unhoused populations, and people with disabilities and the women, youth, and future generations belonging to these communities — will be impacted first and hardest by the climate crisis.
The Climate Equity Act holds the government accountable to frontline communities when it considers a policy, regulation, or investment with a climate or environmental nexus which could broadly include direct policies to address the environment and climate change, but also transportation, housing, infrastructure, jobs, workforce development, and more.”
So everything depends on what a frontline community is. It is here that the confusion begins. This central concept, upon which everything turns, is deliberately not defined. That definition is something to be done after the law is passed, by an Advisory Board no less. I am not making this up.
There is however, this wildly over the top guidance in the draft law :
“SEC. 205. DEFINITION OF FRONTLINE COMMUNITY.
(a) IN GENERAL. The Board of Advisors shall establish a definition of ‘‘frontline community’’ for purposes of this Act.
(b) INCLUSIONS. The definition under subsection (a) shall include, at a minimum
(1) a community or population that has experienced systemic socioeconomic disparities, environmental injustice, or another form of injustice, including
(A) a low-income community;
(B) an indigenous community; and (C) a community of color;
(2) a community or population that is the most vulnerable and will be the most adversely impacted by environmental and climate injustice and inequitable climate actions, including
(A) a community or population described in paragraph (1);
(B) a deindustrialized community; (C) a depopulated rural community; (D) a vulnerable elderly population; (E) an unhoused population;
(F) individuals with disabilities; and
(G) a community that is economically dependent on fossil fuel industries; and
(3) the women, the youth, and all of the descendants of women or youth that are part of a community or population described in paragraph (1) or (2) above.”
Note that section (2)(F) says that individuals with disabilities are by themselves frontline communities. One person communities? And the Advisory Board cannot change this inclusion. In fact all they can do is expand the definition to include more people.
I have no idea what section (3) means. It sounds as though if you are a descendent of a woman (but not a man?) in a frontline community you are still in it, or something. Or maybe only the women and youths in a frontline community are actually in it, not the older men? This section is truly incoherent.
Note too that in addition to communities there are also populations. What the difference is I have no idea. Perhaps communities have to be geographically together while populations do not, such as all the elderly people in New Mexico.
There is no way to tell from this incredibly vague and incoherent definition where the frontline communities are or who is in them.
The law requires that every proposed federal regulation, policy and investment (all grants, loans, etc.) that affects any frontline community must be analyzed for its impact. The negative impact must be minimized and the positive impact maximized. In the case of investments the agency is required to favor frontline communities to the extent allowed by law. Whether this includes federal contracts is unclear.
Given that there is no way to tell what a frontline community is, the result can only be chaos. Agencies cannot analyze what they cannot identify. If they try, in big money cases the attempt is certain to wind up in Federal Court, which the proposed law specifically allows for.
This law is modeled after the infamous National Environmental Policy Act, which requires environmental impact analysis of all federal, federally financed, or approved, projects. But in this case it is the economic impact on something undefined that must be analyzed and optimized.
This is the worst proposed law I have ever see. It is both wildly overreaching and deeply incoherent. But then the concept of climate justice is itself incoherent.
That Kamala Harris and AOC have teamed up to produce this complete nonsense is an ominous sign of things to come if the Democrats prevail in November.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-27--California reveals troubling energy future for the nation

The State of California was once the land of opportunity , captured by the song , “ California Here I Come.
” In the latter half of the 20th century , following the end of World War II , the Golden State ’ s population more than tripled in size , from just over 10.6 million in 1950 , to nearly 34 million by 2000 .
Times have changed , and California ’ s glory days are long over .
Chief among the many factors for the state ’ s decline was on full display in recent days : rolling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and should come as no surprise to the state ’ s obtuse political class , beginning with Gov .
Gavin Newsom who , like Claude Rains ’ character in Casablanca , feigned outrage over the outages The governor also called for an “ investigation ” of the blackouts , as though anyone needed to learn the cause , and he completely ducked any responsibility .
He should rather glance at a mirror .
California ’ s politicians , especially its former four-term loquacious governor , Jerry Brown , have made it state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy to replace fossil fuels .
Accordingly , much of the state ’ s abundant energy sources underground and offshore are off-limits .
Gov .
Newsom is another global warming disciple of Gov .
Brown , only now such policies are palpably and increasingly harming the state ’ s residents .
The strategy has long been for climate alarmists to restrict access to fossil fuels and nuclear power by restricting development and closing power plants in order to create markets for renewable energy .
The result is people and businesses are forced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and solar energy with limited fossil fuels accessible .
The problem is summers get hot , especially in southern California .
In fact , summers have always been hot there , and not because of “ global warming.
” Renewable energy has nowhere near the capacity to make up for restricted fossil fuel supply .
Simple laws of economics say that insufficient supply to meet current demand results in shortages and higher prices .
In the case of electrical energy in California , lack of supply to meet demand means the lights don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditioner doesn ’ t work , along with everything else needing power .
Absent oil and electricity imported by California , the state ’ s residents and business would have a bigger energy catastrophe on their hands .
State populations historically fluctuate for plenty of reasons , the primary ones being robust opportunity and prosperity — both of which require copious energy supplies .
From the end of World War II to 1990 , the population grew such that the state ’ s congressional delegation more than doubled , from 23 representatives in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The state ’ s population is now fluctuating in the other direction , at least relative to most other states .
California , though now at 40 million in population , has not added a congressional district since 2000 , and is not projected to add any from the 2020 census .
It ’ s no wonder .
The middle class can not remain if the lights don ’ t stay on .
Their exodus is a reflection of the state ’ s decline wrought by costly and self-defeating climate-related energy policies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arizona , Utah , Idaho and other states .
At least three of those named states are expected to add congressional seats after the 2020 census .
Other states are following the California ’ s failing green energy experiment , including Virginia and New York .
Both states in the past couple of years enacted expansive “ green new deals ” that mandate higher energy use from wind and solar , and restrict access to fossil fuels .
New York and Virginia also will not be immune the laws of supply and demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as New York continues to ban hydro fracturing from its huge shale deposits , it imports fracked natural gas from neighboring Pennsylvania ; and that , too , is under attack and being restricted .
Which brings us to the proposed Green New Deal being advanced by presidential nominee Joe Biden , and his vice presidential running mate , California ’ s own Sen. Kamala Harris .
If they manage to succeed in imposing on the entire nation California-style restrictions on fossil fuel energy and mandates for “ renewables , ” there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flee .
California ’ s blackouts show the future – for New York and Virginia , which are close behind , and for America , if the Biden-Bernie-AOC-Kamala climate policies become reality .
CFACT has repeatedly documented such policies designed purportedly to fight climate change would do no such thing , but rather cost millions of jobs , trillions of taxpayer dollars , and reduce living standards .
This is not theoretical or abstract .
As goes California , so goes the nation if such climate policies prevail .

The State of California was once the land of opportunity, captured by the song, “California Here I Come.” In the latter half of the 20th century, following the end of World War II, the Golden State’s population more than tripled in size, from just over 10.6 million in 1950, to nearly 34 million by 2000.
Times have changed, and California’s glory days are long over. Chief among the many factors for the state’s decline was on full display in recent days: rolling power blackouts. This is no accident, and should come as no surprise to the state’s obtuse political class, beginning with Gov. Gavin Newsom who, like Claude Rains’ character in Casablanca, feigned outrage over the outages
The governor also called for an “investigation” of the blackouts, as though anyone needed to learn the cause, and he completely ducked any responsibility. He should rather glance at a mirror.
California’s politicians, especially its former four-term loquacious governor, Jerry Brown, have made it state policy to force so-called “renewable” energy to replace fossil fuels. Accordingly, much of the state’s abundant energy sources underground and offshore are off-limits. Gov. Newsom is another global warming disciple of Gov. Brown, only now such policies are palpably and increasingly harming the state’s residents.
The strategy has long been for climate alarmists to restrict access to fossil fuels and nuclear power by restricting development and closing power plants in order to create markets for renewable energy. The result is people and businesses are forced to pay for higher-priced, less reliable wind and solar energy with limited fossil fuels accessible. The problem is summers get hot, especially in southern California. In fact, summers have always been hot there, and not because of “global warming.” Renewable energy has nowhere near the capacity to make up for restricted fossil fuel supply.
Simple laws of economics say that insufficient supply to meet current demand results in shortages and higher prices. In the case of electrical energy in California, lack of supply to meet demand means the lights don’t turn on and the air conditioner doesn’t work, along with everything else needing power.
Absent oil and electricity imported by California, the state’s residents and business would have a bigger energy catastrophe on their hands.
State populations historically fluctuate for plenty of reasons, the primary ones being robust opportunity and prosperity — both of which require copious energy supplies. From the end of World War II to 1990, the population grew such that the state’s congressional delegation more than doubled, from 23 representatives in the U.S. House to 52 members.
The state’s population is now fluctuating in the other direction, at least relative to most other states. California, though now at 40 million in population, has not added a congressional district since 2000, and is not projected to add any from the 2020 census. It’s no wonder. The middle class cannot remain if the lights don’t stay on. Their exodus is a reflection of the state’s decline wrought by costly and self-defeating climate-related energy policies.
Ex-Californians are ending up in Texas, Arizona, Utah, Idaho and other states. At least three of those named states are expected to add congressional seats after the 2020 census.
Other states are following the California’s failing green energy experiment, including Virginia and New York. Both states in the past couple of years enacted expansive “green new deals” that mandate higher energy use from wind and solar, and restrict access to fossil fuels. New York and Virginia also will not be immune the laws of supply and demand any less than California. Even now, as New York continues to ban hydro fracturing from its huge shale deposits, it imports fracked natural gas from neighboring Pennsylvania; and that, too, is under attack and being restricted.
Which brings us to the proposed Green New Deal being advanced by presidential nominee Joe Biden, and his vice presidential running mate, California’s own Sen. Kamala Harris. If they manage to succeed in imposing on the entire nation California-style restrictions on fossil fuel energy and mandates for “renewables,” there will be no state for residents to flee.
California’s blackouts show the future – for New York and Virginia, which are close behind, and for America, if the Biden-Bernie-AOC-Kamala climate policies become reality. CFACT has repeatedly documented such policies designed purportedly to fight climate change would do no such thing, but rather cost millions of jobs, trillions of taxpayer dollars, and reduce living standards.
This is not theoretical or abstract. As goes California, so goes the nation if such climate policies prevail.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-27--Gold King 2: Navajo, New Mexico vs. bad faith EPA

On August 5 , exactly five years after suffering the impacts from a devastating spill of heavy-metal-laden toxic wastewater from Colorado ’ s Gold King Mine , the State of Utah announced a settlement of its claims against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and several EPA contractors ( who were not held liable ) for its alleged negligence in allowing the spill .
The notorious accident turned Cement Creek and the Animas , San Juan , and Colorado Rivers yellow all the way from Colorado through New Mexico and Utah and into Lake Powell .
Yet those whose memories of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the EPA is still in the throes of a consolidated lawsuit filed by the State of New Mexico , the Navajo Nation , and a group of 295 Navajo farmers and ranchers ( and 16 other individuals ) who claim harm from the spill .
Indeed , the Obama Administration made it very clear early on that neither the EPA nor the Federal Emergency Management Agency would provide just compensation for the damages caused by the incident , in which an EPA contractor using a backhoe to dig away rock and debris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The spill happened because no one had done any testing to determine the height of the water inside the mine .
While the Navajo Nation almost immediately after the incident hired the California law firm Hueston Hennigan to represent its interests , the State of New Mexico on May 23 , 2016 , was the first to formally file a lawsuit seeking damage recovery from the EPA and its contractors .
New Mexico Environment Secretary Ryan Flynn explained that , “ We tried over seven months to pursue a diplomatic path forward , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any responsibility for the spill and its aftermath .
Flynn estimated that New Mexico would lose $ 130 million in income , taxes , fees , and revenues because of lost tourism , fishing , and land use .
The New Mexico lawsuit also named EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy , Environmental Restoration , Kinross Gold Corp. , Kinross Gold USA Inc. , and Sunnyside Gold Corp. Another major reason for the lawsuit was that New Mexico and the EPA had been unable to “ mutually agree ” on a monitoring plan that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At the time , EPA Region 6 spokesperson David Gray asserted that his agency DID take responsibility for the cleanup and was working to reimburse response costs and proving funding for monitoring state and tribe developed monitoring plans .
But those words held no sway .
The Navajo Nation , meanwhile , had its own share of frustrations with the federal response to the incident .
According to Nation Attorney General Ethel Branch , “ The impact has been devastating to our culture and economy , as well as to the peace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unknown amounts of fine sediment in our water we now face the risk of reliving this nightmare with every major increased water flow event affecting the river.
” The Nation filed its lawsuit on August 16 , 2016 – just over a year after the incident , noting that Navajo farmers had to abandon large portions of their fields in the hopes of salvaging limited plots , and livestock have become dehydrated due to the lack of water that also dried up corn crops .
Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye , in filing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to fight for even the tiny $ 1.1 million in compensation provided from the EPA – which only came after the tribe threatened legal action .
“ EPA , we ’ re holding your feet to the fire .
We will not let you get away with this , we will be here , ” Begaye asserted .
Then in August 2017 the EPA reversed Region 6 Administrator Gray ’ s admission of responsibility .
In February 2018 , however , U.S. District Judge M. Christina Armijo opted to leave the now-consolidated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2018 , the EPA again asked a federal judge to dismiss the case [ and the Utah case ] , claiming that crews were already working on the cleanup .
In their filing , the EPA ’ s attorneys claimed that “ Granting any relief in New Mexico , within the Navajo Nation , or in Utah would conflict and interfere with EPA ’ s exclusive jurisdiction over its on-going response action activities and cleanup remedies.
” A month later , the EPA was hit with yet another lawsuit , this one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ranchers from New Mexico .
Attorney Kate Ferlic argued that these farmers and ranchers had lost crops and livestock and had to pay to haul clean water because they could no longer use water from polluted rivers .
U.S. District Judge William P. Johnson immediately rolled the farmers and ranchers suit into the Navajo and New Mexico ( and Utah ) suits ( there was also a suit involving a small number of New Mexicans ) , and once again the EPA sought to have the reconsolidated lawsuit thrown out .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson denied the EPA ’ s latest ploy .
As of this writing , while Utah has settled with the EPA and withdrawn from the consolidated lawsuit , the other claimants – New Mexico , Navajo Nation , and two groups of citizens – are still awaiting compensation for the damages caused by the EPA ’ s alleged negligence in 2015 .
Five years have passed , and the Navajo in particular are still hurting even as they battle the COVID 19 pandemic .
Restrictions on travel and in-person interviews have slowed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial date has been pushed back to fall 2021 .
While the Utah settlement may provide some hope for a pretrial resolution of the New Mexico and Navajo ( and farmer and rancher ) cases , hard-line positions taken over the past five years by the EPA – and the determination of the plaintiffs to finally win some meaningful relief – suggest that , barring some pre-election-day “ miracle , ” this consolidated case could easily drag on for years .

On August 5, exactly five years after suffering the impacts from a devastating spill of heavy-metal-laden toxic wastewater from Colorado’s Gold King Mine, the State of Utah announced a settlement of its claims against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and several EPA contractors (who were not held liable) for its alleged negligence in allowing the spill.
The notorious accident turned Cement Creek and the Animas, San Juan, and Colorado Rivers yellow all the way from Colorado through New Mexico and Utah and into Lake Powell. Yet those whose memories of are faulty at best may not realize that the EPA is still in the throes of a consolidated lawsuit filed by the State of New Mexico, the Navajo Nation, and a group of 295 Navajo farmers and ranchers (and 16 other individuals) who claim harm from the spill.
Indeed, the Obama Administration made it very clear early on that neither the EPA nor the Federal Emergency Management Agency would provide just compensation for the damages caused by the incident, in which an EPA contractor using a backhoe to dig away rock and debris from the adit opened the floodgates. The spill happened because no one had done any testing to determine the height of the water inside the mine.
While the Navajo Nation almost immediately after the incident hired the California law firm Hueston Hennigan to represent its interests, the State of New Mexico on May 23, 2016, was the first to formally file a lawsuit seeking damage recovery from the EPA and its contractors.
New Mexico Environment Secretary Ryan Flynn explained that, “We tried over seven months to pursue a diplomatic path forward,” but the EPA refused to accept any responsibility for the spill and its aftermath. Flynn estimated that New Mexico would lose $130 million in income, taxes, fees, and revenues because of lost tourism, fishing, and land use.
The New Mexico lawsuit also named EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, Environmental Restoration, Kinross Gold Corp., Kinross Gold USA Inc., and Sunnyside Gold Corp. Another major reason for the lawsuit was that New Mexico and the EPA had been unable to “mutually agree” on a monitoring plan that “appropriately protects” state and tribal lands.
At the time, EPA Region 6 spokesperson David Gray asserted that his agency DID take responsibility for the cleanup and was working to reimburse response costs and proving funding for monitoring state and tribe developed monitoring plans. But those words held no sway.
The Navajo Nation, meanwhile, had its own share of frustrations with the federal response to the incident. According to Nation Attorney General Ethel Branch, “The impact has been devastating to our culture and economy, as well as to the peace of mind of our people. With unknown amounts of fine sediment in our water we now face the risk of reliving this nightmare with every major increased water flow event affecting the river.”
The Nation filed its lawsuit on August 16, 2016 – just over a year after the incident, noting that Navajo farmers had to abandon large portions of their fields in the hopes of salvaging limited plots, and livestock have become dehydrated due to the lack of water that also dried up corn crops.
Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye, in filing the lawsuit, complained that the tribe had to fight for even the tiny $1.1 million in compensation provided from the EPA – which only came after the tribe threatened legal action. “EPA, we’re holding your feet to the fire. We will not let you get away with this, we will be here,” Begaye asserted.
Then in August 2017 the EPA reversed Region 6 Administrator Gray’s admission of responsibility. In February 2018, however, U.S. District Judge M. Christina Armijo opted to leave the now-consolidated lawsuit intact. Then on July 26, 2018, the EPA again asked a federal judge to dismiss the case [and the Utah case], claiming that crews were already working on the cleanup.
In their filing, the EPA’s attorneys claimed that “Granting any relief in New Mexico, within the Navajo Nation, or in Utah would conflict and interfere with EPA’s exclusive jurisdiction over its on-going response action activities and cleanup remedies.”
A month later, the EPA was hit with yet another lawsuit, this one filed on behalf of 295 Navajo farmers and ranchers from New Mexico. Attorney Kate Ferlic argued that these farmers and ranchers had lost crops and livestock and had to pay to haul clean water because they could no longer use water from polluted rivers.
U.S. District Judge William P. Johnson immediately rolled the farmers and ranchers suit into the Navajo and New Mexico (and Utah) suits (there was also a suit involving a small number of New Mexicans), and once again the EPA sought to have the reconsolidated lawsuit thrown out. But on February 28, 2019, Judge Johnson denied the EPA’s latest ploy.
As of this writing, while Utah has settled with the EPA and withdrawn from the consolidated lawsuit, the other claimants – New Mexico, Navajo Nation, and two groups of citizens – are still awaiting compensation for the damages caused by the EPA’s alleged negligence in 2015.
Five years have passed, and the Navajo in particular are still hurting even as they battle the COVID 19 pandemic. Restrictions on travel and in-person interviews have slowed the ongoing discovery process such that the projected trial date has been pushed back to fall 2021.
While the Utah settlement may provide some hope for a pretrial resolution of the New Mexico and Navajo (and farmer and rancher) cases, hard-line positions taken over the past five years by the EPA – and the determination of the plaintiffs to finally win some meaningful relief – suggest that, barring some pre-election-day “miracle,” this consolidated case could easily drag on for years.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-26--California’s blackouts preview the Green New Deal for America

Brief evening power blackouts that rolled across California cities and towns during an August 13-14 heat wave offer a warning glimpse of much more dire consequences we can absolutely count on occurring with enactment of the Biden campaign ’ s “ Build Back Better ” proposal to immediately eliminate fracking on all public lands , and virtually eliminate fossil-fueled power plants over the next 15 years .
In concert with the aspirational Green New Deal co-sponsored by his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris , D-Calif. , the plan calls for humongous expenditures in renewable energy , including installing 500 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Add to this that Biden proposes to have taxpayers finance a half-million electric car chargers all across America along with funding to help car makers convert their factories to electric vehicle ( EV ) production .
This , of course , will shift even greater energy demand from petroleum to the electrical power sector .
Producing and recharging those EVs will require that sufficient energy be constantly available when the wind isn ’ t blowing and sunlight isn ’ t available .
That wasn ’ t the case on the evenings of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Independent System Operator ( Caiso ) , which manages the state ’ s power grid , declared a high-level emergency and ordered utilities to reduce power usage as demand outstripped supplies .
Although both orders were short-lived , the emergency measures exposed just how thin the grid ’ s margin for error had become .
PG & E , California ’ s largest utility , said the outages affected about 220,000 customers each night .
Two other utilities , Edison International ’ s Southern California Edison and Sempra Energy ’ s San Diego @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reduce power use but had fewer affected .
The August rolling blackouts were different from widespread intentional pre-emptive power shut-offs that left large populations in the dark last fall which PG & E and Southern California Edison each initiated when strong winds increased the risk of power lines sparking wildfires .
This emergency , and others certain to follow , are entirely avoidable as a Green New Deal harbinger of ill-wind to other states .
After all , most of the southwestern U.S. experienced the same heat wave , but managed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t California manage to do the same ?
California Democrats have mandated that renewables account for 60 % of state electricity by 2030 , which has forced power providers to cut back on fossil fuel use and dramatically ramp up investments in intermittent “ renewable ” sources to meet that deadline .
In doing so , the state has almost eliminated coal-fired generation and has been reducing reliance on natural gas and nuclear power in favor of solar farms and , to a lesser extent , wind power , which now supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typical ” power needs .
But conditions aren ’ t always typical , and California energy policies are causing them to be increasingly less so .
During peak daylight hours California produces a surplus of solar energy , whereby power generators may be ordered or paid to cut back their production so the electric grid isn ’ t overloaded .
In fact during the August emergency Caiso reported that about 1,000 mega-watt hours ( MWh ) were curtailed — enough to power 30,000 homes .
About 1.3 million MWh of daytime power have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different matter entirely — times when solar energy plunges but power demand remains high .
And that ’ s what happened in August as residents across the state were blasting their air-conditioning units while sheltering from the coronavirus at home .
Under “ typical ” circumstances , California has historically relied heavily during shortfalls on power imported from neighboring states as well as natural gas-fired plants capable of starting up quickly when needed .
This time , however , neighboring Western states were also realizing rises in usage due to extreme heat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Meanwhile , state water regulations are also forcing the shutdown of natural gas-fired “ peaker ” plants along the coast that can quickly ramp up generation when the sun goes down .
As a result , California ’ s Public Utilities Commission warned last year that the state could face an energy shortage as early as 2021 on hot summer evenings .
They beat that forecast by a year .
Nevertheless , Calif. Gov .
Gavin Newsom cluelessly blamed the state ’ s grid operator and utility regulator in a letter for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unacceptable particularly given our state ’ s work to combat climate change.
” The charge added , “ These blackouts , which occurred without prior warning or enough time for preparation , are unacceptable and unbefitting the nation ’ s largest and most innovative state.
” Tod Snitchler , chief executive of the Electric Power Supply Association , projects that “ California , in many ways , is the canary in the coal mine .
His trade group , representing power producers nationwide , urges , “ Many of the natural gas units @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see go away have been exactly what ’ s needed to keep the system operating.
” But that opportunity window appears to be closing as many natural gas and nuclear plants needed for 24/7 power have shut down in recent years because they can ’ t compete with heavily subsidized green energy .
A 10-year-old natural gas power plant in California ’ s Inland Empire is being decommissioned this year — 20 to 30 years earlier than its planned lifespan .
While they can still get it , Californians already pay twice as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third more than Nevadans .
Now their Sacramento Democratic leaders wish to share their overheated policy pain nationwide via a Joe Biden/Kamala Harris administration .
Before we allow that , take a close look at the condition of that canary in the abandoned California coal mine .
There certainly isn ’ t much Democratic Party future to chirp about .

Brief evening power blackouts that rolled across California cities and towns during an August 13-14 heat wave offer a warning glimpse of much more dire consequences we can absolutely count on occurring with enactment of the Biden campaign’s “Build Back Better” proposal to immediately eliminate fracking on all public lands, and virtually eliminate fossil-fueled power plants over the next 15 years.
In concert with the aspirational Green New Deal co-sponsored by his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., the plan calls for humongous expenditures in renewable energy, including installing 500 million solar panels and manufacturing 60,000 wind turbines.
Add to this that Biden proposes to have taxpayers finance a half-million electric car chargers all across America along with funding to help car makers convert their factories to electric vehicle (EV) production.
This, of course, will shift even greater energy demand from petroleum to the electrical power sector. Producing and recharging those EVs will require that sufficient energy be constantly available when the wind isn’t blowing and sunlight isn’t available.
That wasn’t the case on the evenings of Aug. 13 and 14 when the California Independent System Operator (Caiso), which manages the state’s power grid, declared a high-level emergency and ordered utilities to reduce power usage as demand outstripped supplies.
Although both orders were short-lived, the emergency measures exposed just how thin the grid’s margin for error had become.
PG&E, California’s largest utility, said the outages affected about 220,000 customers each night. Two other utilities, Edison International’s Southern California Edison and Sempra Energy’s San Diego Gas & Electric, urged their customers to reduce power use but had fewer affected.
The August rolling blackouts were different from widespread intentional pre-emptive power shut-offs that left large populations in the dark last fall which PG&E and Southern California Edison each initiated when strong winds increased the risk of power lines sparking wildfires.
This emergency, and others certain to follow, are entirely avoidable as a Green New Deal harbinger of ill-wind to other states.
After all, most of the southwestern U.S. experienced the same heat wave, but managed to keep full power flowing.
Why couldn’t California manage to do the same?
The short answer is “politics.”
California Democrats have mandated that renewables account for 60% of state electricity by 2030, which has forced power providers to cut back on fossil fuel use and dramatically ramp up investments in intermittent “renewable”sources to meet that deadline.
In doing so, the state has almost eliminated coal-fired generation and has been reducing reliance on natural gas and nuclear power in favor of solar farms and, to a lesser extent, wind power, which now supply more than a third of its “typical” power needs.
But conditions aren’t always typical, and California energy policies are causing them to be increasingly less so.
During peak daylight hours California produces a surplus of solar energy, whereby power generators may be ordered or paid to cut back their production so the electric grid isn’t overloaded.
In fact during the August emergency Caiso reported that about 1,000 mega-watt hours (MWh) were curtailed — enough to power 30,000 homes.
About 1.3 million MWh of daytime power have been curtailed this year.
Evenings are a different matter entirely — times when solar energy plunges but power demand remains high. And that’s what happened in August as residents across the state were blasting their air-conditioning units while sheltering from the coronavirus at home.
Under “typical” circumstances, California has historically relied heavily during shortfalls on power imported from neighboring states as well as natural gas-fired plants capable of starting up quickly when needed. This time, however, neighboring Western states were also realizing rises in usage due to extreme heat, with less excess electricity to spare.
Meanwhile, state water regulations are also forcing the shutdown of natural gas-fired “peaker” plants along the coast that can quickly ramp up generation when the sun goes down. As a result, California’s Public Utilities Commission warned last year that the state could face an energy shortage as early as 2021 on hot summer evenings. They beat that forecast by a year.
Nevertheless, Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom cluelessly blamed the state’s grid operator and utility regulator in a letter for “failure to predict these shortages is unacceptable particularly given our state’s work to combat climate change.”
The charge added, “These blackouts, which occurred without prior warning or enough time for preparation, are unacceptable and unbefitting the nation’s largest and most innovative state.”
Tod Snitchler, chief executive of the Electric Power Supply Association, projects that “California, in many ways, is the canary in the coal mine. His trade group, representing power producers nationwide, urges, “Many of the natural gas units that some in California would like to see go away have been exactly what’s needed to keep the system operating.”
But that opportunity window appears to be closing as many natural gas and nuclear plants needed for 24/7 power have shut down in recent years because they can’t compete with heavily subsidized green energy.
A 10-year-old natural gas power plant in California’s Inland Empire is being decommissioned this year — 20 to 30 years earlier than its planned lifespan.
While they can still get it, Californians already pay twice as much for electricity as Washingtonians and a third more than Nevadans.
Now their Sacramento Democratic leaders wish to share their overheated policy pain nationwide via a Joe Biden/Kamala Harris administration.
Before we allow that, take a close look at the condition of that canary in the abandoned California coal mine.
There certainly isn’t much Democratic Party future to chirp about.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-26--Paying off the pandemic debt with revenue from federal lands

The United States is blessed with vast and continually underestimated energy resources .
America has more oil , coal and natural gas than any other country in the world .
The US Geological Survey which publishes estimates of our reserves raises their numbers almost every year .
For example early estimates of oil in North Dakota ’ s Bakken shale field were between 4 and 5 billion barrels of oil .
They are now estimated to be over 24 billion barrels .
Similar increasing estimates occur in Texas , Pennsylvania .
Louisiana , Ohio , West Virginia and Arkansas .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ innovative , or environmentally sensitive in the extraction of oil and gas as the United States , and no country has done it as profitably before the pandemic and as they will after it .
Competition and reasonable regulation are part of the reason for our success , but there is another factor which is a distinctively American phenomenon .
Are you ready for it ?
Ours is the only country in the world where mineral rights can be privately owned .
In all other countries , the state owns the oil , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minerals .
The incentive of private property rights , in fungible resources , propels the U.S. oil and gas business as nowhere else in the world .
Nevertheless , federal policy is stifling our even greater potential .
Ninety-six percent of our production in the shale revolution has occurred on private and state lands over which the government has far less regulatory jurisdiction than on our federally owned lands .
Alaska has huge untapped mineral resources , but the federal ownership of almost 70 % of the state ’ s land prevents their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are told daily , if the democrats take control of the nation next November further impediments will be instituted to insure that more of our vast energy resources remain in the ground .
If that unfortunate scenario does not play out , let ’ s consider how much could the federal government raise in royalties , drilling fees , and income taxes if it allowed drilling on federal lands ?
When one examines recent inventories of the USGS , the U.S. Energy Information Administration , and other private scholarly assessments , Steve Moore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book Fueling Freedom , concluded conservatively that at least 1.5 trillion barrels of oil were available and three quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas .
The value of that energy is worth at least $ 50 trillion and amounts to 50 times the nations consumption .
It is no pipe dream to recognize that were sound energy policies to be instituted by our government , our nations gigantic debt , further increased to keep the public afloat through the current pandemic , could be paid down .
Reasonable estimates of oil production on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil a day and corresponding increases of natural gas production for decades .
While the pandemic has damaged energy production and sales throughout the world they will recover in no less time than it will take the country to move to allow the public to benefit from the resources currently held hostage by our government .
Moore and White estimate that the federal take would amount to $ 3 trillion when including income taxes on suppliers and other contractors involved in these production activities , plus income taxes on a million or more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and production companies .
Another $ 1trillion could be raised in similar fashion by state and local governments .
That is surely more than any bi-partisan deficit reduction plan could ever deliver .
Understand I am not talking about drilling in Yellowstone Park or on the National Mall next to the Washington Monument .
This is only about non-environmentally sensitive lands from the Arctic to New Mexico and offshore .
This national energy strategy would insure America ’ s leadership for decades to come and strengthen our national security by never again being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfriendly to us .
And yet it is the so called progressives of the western world who are standing athwart history yelling “ STOP ” .
Note : Portions of this article were excerpted from the book Fueling Freedom with permission of the authors Stephen Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White .
Their book , in this authors opinion , is the finest treatise on US energy ever published .

The United States is blessed with vast and continually underestimated energy resources. America has more oil, coal and natural gas than any other country in the world. The US Geological Survey which publishes estimates of our reserves raises their numbers almost every year. For example early estimates of oil in North Dakota’s Bakken shale field were between 4 and 5 billion barrels of oil. They are now estimated to be over 24 billion barrels. Similar increasing estimates occur in Texas, Pennsylvania. Louisiana, Ohio, West Virginia and Arkansas.
No country has been as efficient, innovative, or environmentally sensitive in the extraction of oil and gas as the United States, and no country has done it as profitably before the pandemic and as they will after it.
Competition and reasonable regulation are part of the reason for our success, but there is another factor which is a distinctively American phenomenon. Are you ready for it? Ours is the only country in the world where mineral rights can be privately owned. In all other countries, the state owns the oil, natural gas, coal and other subsurface minerals. The incentive of private property rights, in fungible resources, propels the U.S. oil and gas business as nowhere else in the world. Nevertheless, federal policy is stifling our even greater potential.
Ninety-six percent of our production in the shale revolution has occurred on private and state lands over which the government has far less regulatory jurisdiction than on our federally owned lands. Alaska has huge untapped mineral resources, but the federal ownership of almost 70% of the state’s land prevents their efficient development. Of course as we are told daily, if the democrats take control of the nation next November further impediments will be instituted to insure that more of our vast energy resources remain in the ground.
If that unfortunate scenario does not play out, let’s consider how much could the federal government raise in royalties, drilling fees, and income taxes if it allowed drilling on federal lands? When one examines recent inventories of the USGS, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and other private scholarly assessments, Steve Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White, in their book Fueling Freedom, concluded conservatively that at least 1.5 trillion barrels of oil were available and three quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas. The value of that energy is worth at least $50 trillion and amounts to 50 times the nations consumption.
It is no pipe dream to recognize that were sound energy policies to be instituted by our government, our nations gigantic debt, further increased to keep the public afloat through the current pandemic, could be paid down.
Reasonable estimates of oil production on federal lands reach a billion barrels of oil a day and corresponding increases of natural gas production for decades. While the pandemic has damaged energy production and sales throughout the world they will recover in no less time than it will take the country to move to allow the public to benefit from the resources currently held hostage by our government.
Moore and White estimate that the federal take would amount to $3 trillion when including income taxes on suppliers and other contractors involved in these production activities, plus income taxes on a million or more highly paid new employees of the exploration and production companies. Another $1trillion could be raised in similar fashion by state and local governments.
That is surely more than any bi-partisan deficit reduction plan could ever deliver. Understand I am not talking about drilling in Yellowstone Park or on the National Mall next to the Washington Monument . This is only about non-environmentally sensitive lands from the Arctic to New Mexico and offshore.
This national energy strategy would insure America’s leadership for decades to come and strengthen our national security by never again being dependent for oil on countries who are unfriendly to us. And yet it is the so called progressives of the western world who are standing athwart history yelling “STOP”.
Note: Portions of this article were excerpted from the book Fueling Freedom with permission of the authors Stephen Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White. Their book, in this authors opinion, is the finest treatise on US energy ever published.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-26--EP 101: Jenny Anderson from ‘Girl of 10,000 Lakes’

In Episode 101 of District of Conservation , Gabriella speaks with former journalist and outdoor content creator Jenny Anderson , @ @ @ @ @ 10,000 Lakes blog .
Jenny was born in Korea and immigrated to the USA as @ @ @ @ @ serves as a WSI Sports pro staffer ( like our host ) .
She talked @ @ @ @ @ outdoor industry and what makes her tick .
She chatted how she picked up fishing @ @ @ @ @ her own since she didn ’ t grow up with these activities .
You don @ @ @ @ @ this convo !
Girl From 10,000 Lakes Website Meet Jenny Follow Jenny on Facebook Follow @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter

In Episode 101 of District of Conservation, Gabriella speaks with former journalist and outdoor content creator Jenny Anderson, who runs the Girl from 10,000 Lakes blog. Jenny was born in Korea and immigrated to the USA as a child. She also serves as a WSI Sports pro staffer (like our host). She talked about her journey in the outdoor industry and what makes her tick. She chatted how she picked up fishing and most recently hunting on her own since she didn’t grow up with these activities. You don’t want to miss this convo!
Girl From 10,000 Lakes Website
Meet Jenny
Follow Jenny on Facebook
Follow Jenny on Instagram
Follow Jenny on Twitter
Photo credit: https://girlof10000lakes.com


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-25--California’s blackouts teach what not to do

California enjoys the world ’ s fifth largest economy .
It boasts a larger GDP than Great Britain ’ s .
Why can ’ t a state with this kind of economic power keep its lights on ?
You know the answer — Green ideology .
California has essentially become a one-party state .
No branch of California government is commanded by a majority that understands energy .
Steve Goreham explains the consequences of bad energy policy at CFACT.org : California has the least reliable electrical power system in the United States .
It isn ’ t even close .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Golden State leads the U.S. in power outages every year , with more than twice as many as any other state over the last decade… The problem of California ’ s poor electric reliability will likely get worse .
On Sept. 10 , 2018 , then-Gov .
Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100 , committing California to obtain 100 % of its electricity from “ clean energy sources ” by 2045 .
Replacement of coal , nuclear , and natural gas generators with wind and solar will continue to erode grid reliability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begging to neighboring states to keep its electric grid afloat .
Energy analyst Ron Stein gives us the sorry numbers detailing the shutdown of California ’ s generating capacity at CFACT.org .
After shutting down coal energy , California is shutting down clean natural gas and the last of its emissions-free ( if that ’ s your thing ) nuclear !
• PG & E ’ s Nuclear 2,160 megawatt Generating Plant at Diablo Canyon is to be shuttered in 2024 .
• The 823 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Scattergood in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2024 .
• The 575 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Haynes in Long Beach , to be shuttered in 2029 .
• The 472 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Wilmington , to be shuttered in 2029 .
California needs all that power !
Intermittent , wind and solar plants are great at generating subsidies , but inefficient at generating electricity .
Burning up trees and relabeling it “ biomass ” is ridiculous .
The rest of the U.S. has slashed CO2 emissions ( if that ’ s your thing ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with hundreds more being constructed .
China , meanwhile , put over 1,000 gigawatts of COAL ( ! )
electricity online , and is this minute constructing hundreds of gigawatts more !
Would someone please explain to the clueless Greens running California that wind and solar are inefficient , clean-burning natural gas allowed America to slash emissions more than any other nation , nuclear energy is safe and emissions-free , and shifting manufacturing from an energy-starved America to an energy-rich China means more emissions , not less ?

California enjoys the world’s fifth largest economy. It boasts a larger GDP than Great Britain’s.
Yet California just suffered widespread power outages.
Why can’t a state with this kind of economic power keep its lights on?
You know the answer — Green ideology.
California has essentially become a one-party state. No branch of California government is commanded by a majority that understands energy.
Steve Goreham explains the consequences of bad energy policy at CFACT.org:
California has the least reliable electrical power system in the United States. It isn’t even close. According to data by Eaton Corporation, the Golden State leads the U.S. in power outages every year, with more than twice as many as any other state over the last decade…
The problem of California’s poor electric reliability will likely get worse. On Sept. 10, 2018, then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100, committing California to obtain 100% of its electricity from “clean energy sources” by 2045. Replacement of coal, nuclear, and natural gas generators with wind and solar will continue to erode grid reliability.
California has been forced to go begging to neighboring states to keep its electric grid afloat.
Energy analyst Ron Stein gives us the sorry numbers detailing the shutdown of California’s generating capacity at CFACT.org. After shutting down coal energy, California is shutting down clean natural gas and the last of its emissions-free (if that’s your thing) nuclear!
Despite a struggling power grid, recently shuttered and soon-to-be closing electric plants include:
Encina at 854 MW
Mandalay at 560 MW
Etiwanda at 640 MW
Redondo Beach at 1,310 MW
PG&E’s Nuclear 2,160 megawatt Generating Plant at Diablo Canyon is to be shuttered in 2024.
The 823 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Scattergood in Playa Del Rey, to be shuttered in 2024.
The 575 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Haynes in Long Beach, to be shuttered in 2029.
The 472 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Wilmington, to be shuttered in 2029.
California needs all that power!
Intermittent, wind and solar plants are great at generating subsidies, but inefficient at generating electricity.
Burning up trees and relabeling it “biomass” is ridiculous.
The rest of the U.S. has slashed CO2 emissions (if that’s your thing) by commissioning over 2,000 natural gas plants, with hundreds more being constructed.
China, meanwhile, put over 1,000 gigawatts of COAL(!) electricity online, and is this minute constructing hundreds of gigawatts more!
Would someone please explain to the clueless Greens running California that wind and solar are inefficient, clean-burning natural gas allowed America to slash emissions more than any other nation, nuclear energy is safe and emissions-free, and shifting manufacturing from an energy-starved America to an energy-rich China means more emissions, not less?


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-25--EP 100: We’ve Hit Episodes! Plus: a Preview of Season 3

In Episode 100 of District of Conservation , Gabriella expressed her gratitude to listeners , clarified the mission of the @ @ @ @ @ people can expect in Season 3 , which will debut on September 8th .

In Episode 100 of District of Conservation, Gabriella expressed her gratitude to listeners, clarified the mission of the podcast, and previewed what people can expect in Season 3, which will debut on September 8th.
Leave a review for District of Conservation
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Instagram
Follow us on Twitter


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-24--EP 99: Jeff Angers of Center for Sportfishing Policy

In Episode 99 of District of Conservation , Gabriella spoke to Center for Sportfishing Policy president Jeff Angers .
Here ’ s more about the organization : The Center for Sportfishing Policy ’ s role is to affect public policy related to the conservation of marine resources with broad abilities to pursue political solutions .
The organization is non-partisan and focuses on having an impact in the national political arena , principally Congress and federal regulatory agencies .
The Center is organized under Section 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) of the Internal Revenue Code ; accordingly , donations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Center has established the Center for Sportfishing Policy Political Action Committee ( Center PAC ) , so that its members can fully participate in elective politics .
The Center and Center PAC work to elect candidates to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives who support marine conservation .
• Dem 2020 platform on 30 by 2030 ( pg .
56 ) : “ Democrats will protect wildlife habitats and biodiversity , slow extinction rates , and grow America ’ s natural carbon sinks by conserving 30 percent of our lands and @ @ @ @ @

In Episode 99 of District of Conservation, Gabriella spoke to Center for Sportfishing Policy president Jeff Angers. Here’s more about the organization:
The Center for Sportfishing Policy’s role is to affect public policy related to the conservation of marine resources with broad abilities to pursue political solutions. The organization is non-partisan and focuses on having an impact in the national political arena, principally Congress and federal regulatory agencies.
The Center is organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code; accordingly, donations are not tax deductible. Additionally, the Center has established the Center for Sportfishing Policy Political Action Committee (Center PAC), so that its members can fully participate in elective politics. The Center and Center PAC work to elect candidates to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives who support marine conservation.
Show Notes: