Obama may be taking a victory lap over the final determinations of the U.S. Supreme Court this session, but he wasn't the biggest winner. Obama may have been happy, but in keeping an eye toward 2016, Charles and David Koch took home the ultimate prize. A quick look at each decision, and the impact, with a score from 10 to -10 to track the points the Koch Camp scores with each decision:
Lethal Injection (-1)
In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS ruled that a drug linked to three different botched executions could continue to be used. This didn't favor the Koch Camp, but you can't win them all. Liberals seeking to paint the brothers as pure evil would be surprised (on this and a list of other issues) that there's more agreement than not on criminal justice policies between the two sides. The Kochs have spent millions promoting criminal justice reform - including donations to (GASP!) the ACLU.
The Kochs are much more rational actors than they're given credit for, and disprove of criminal justice as it's practice in America. And while they'd never promote additional services to help the poor, they're opposed to actively punishing them for their socioeconomic status. Sure, they're appalled by the government spending billions to incarcerate people because those prisons are funded via taxes, but they've also been aligning with groups outright opposed to the death penalty.
Do they really care that much about the death penalty itself, or just the system's treatment of minorities committing low-level drug offenses? Hard to say, but the Charles Koch Institute is definitely devoted to reforming the system. Ergo, we rate this a -1, because I've no better score to argue for.
Same Sex Marraige (+7)
This victory is two-fold. The first is that gay marriage initiatives are major wins for Democrats. States putting the issue on the ballot in elections turns out the liberal vote, and colors elections blue. Depriving more States the opportunity to vote on the issue prevents this scenario. Additionally, while Koch Enterprises is headquartered in Kansas, the Kochs are New York City residents. They're not prejudiced people who discriminate based on skin color or sexual orientation.
Health Care Subsidies (+4)
Most people aren't aware of what the ACA decision actually did. The impact was the decision that the federal government may subsidies to individuals in states that opted not to provide marketplaces for insurance coverage (in those instances, the feds came in and set up insurance exchanges sans state support). There are 6.4 million people in 34 states receiving $1.7 billion monthly who would be effected.
On the surface, the Koch Camp hates this decision. It deprived the country of the opportunity to take a nice bite out of Obamacare and makes future reforms to the law more difficult. However, significant writing has been devoted to the pressure such a result would put on officials in swing districts. The biggest conservative fear of Obamacare was that, once you give someone something, it's hard to take it away. Those receiving healthcare assistance now expect to continue receiving it, and if you don't promise to return, they'll vote for someone who will. The ruling Republicans wanted could have very well precipitated a blue wave that actually strengthened the ACA. This ruling, considering everything, may have been the best outcome.
Pollution Limits (+10)
This was the win no one is talking about. The decision wasn't earth-shattering, but did rule the EPA was failing to properly conduct cost-benefit analysis in setting emissions limits. The EPA was headed down a path of requiring more expensive scrubbers and other technology that significantly impacted the bottom line of polluting industries. Given the portfolio of Koch Industries, the brothers' wallets will be larger in future years as a direct result of this outcome.
Showing posts with label utilities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label utilities. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Hot Gay Latinos
I was listening to some smart commentary a couple weeks ago about how Obama has (smartly) cherry-picked certain policies to excite an otherwise (very) unexcited base. Gay marriage energizes Hollywood elites and rich benefactors with a personal interest in the matter (even if his support is limited to not opposing states that recognize same-sex marriages). This is important because he needs money. The recent position decision to provide children of illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship energizes the Latino vote. This is important because otherwise these people aren't going to show up.
Call it cynical politics, smart politics, bad policy, or smart policy. I'm it calling strategy. He's got the money and the voters, but is missing an essential link - the mobilization effort. This will require the work of either students or greenies. Smart money is on the greenies.
If Obama was gonna do something to excite students, it needed to be done a month ago. Now summer break is halfway over and 20-year-olds are already preoccupied with shitty summer jobs and awkwardly hooking up with old high school flings while skyping with their college boy/girlfriends every other night. He'll need them in the fall, but it just doesn't make sense to believe they'll provide support like in 2008.
However, there's a perfect storm calling for the green mobilization machine. Environmentalists have taken a backseat to everyone but the typewriter lobby since the failed cap and trade effort of 2009. They've been grumbling for three years about how every major liberal group got something big accomplished but them. They're not happy. As such, your current Campaigner In Chief needs to do something to get them to go pound the pavement and telephone lines. The weather this summer has been ridiculous, and the time to pounce is probably this week:
Exploit the weather now! Between half the western US being on fire, Florida going underwater, and the enthusiasm bump from environmentalists finally getting some attention, it seems like the thing Obama could pounce on. (Remember kids - always point to peculiar weather events as confirmation/disprove. Both sides love using anecdotal evidence to back up their science.) Plus, as of Tuesday there's less uncertainty about whether the EPA can go forward with regulating GHGs under the Clean Air Act after a federal appeals court ruled the EPA was “unambiguously correct” in its legal rationale behind regulating greenhouse gases. Probably highlight the legal triumph and use it to bolster your argument for the new GHG policy.
The flip side of this is that the Obama team recognizes how unhappy the markets will be at the prospect of an energy tax, making economic output sink, and really giving conservatives to rally around and drum up more support from business. With Europe unable to remove itself from one huge clusterf*** and China slowing down, the Dow is just looking for an excuse to plummet back to 11,000. As such, I think it's iffy politics. It'll also be done in a way that's dumb policy. After the SCOTUS ruling today upholding the health care mandate, I don't know if the administration prefers to bask in the glow of 'winning' or would rather divert attention away from an unpopular law. Just don't discount the possibility of a cap and trade announcement coming to a campaign near you.
However, there's a perfect storm calling for the green mobilization machine. Environmentalists have taken a backseat to everyone but the typewriter lobby since the failed cap and trade effort of 2009. They've been grumbling for three years about how every major liberal group got something big accomplished but them. They're not happy. As such, your current Campaigner In Chief needs to do something to get them to go pound the pavement and telephone lines. The weather this summer has been ridiculous, and the time to pounce is probably this week:
(The ten day forecast back home in KS)
Exploit the weather now! Between half the western US being on fire, Florida going underwater, and the enthusiasm bump from environmentalists finally getting some attention, it seems like the thing Obama could pounce on. (Remember kids - always point to peculiar weather events as confirmation/disprove. Both sides love using anecdotal evidence to back up their science.) Plus, as of Tuesday there's less uncertainty about whether the EPA can go forward with regulating GHGs under the Clean Air Act after a federal appeals court ruled the EPA was “unambiguously correct” in its legal rationale behind regulating greenhouse gases. Probably highlight the legal triumph and use it to bolster your argument for the new GHG policy.
The flip side of this is that the Obama team recognizes how unhappy the markets will be at the prospect of an energy tax, making economic output sink, and really giving conservatives to rally around and drum up more support from business. With Europe unable to remove itself from one huge clusterf*** and China slowing down, the Dow is just looking for an excuse to plummet back to 11,000. As such, I think it's iffy politics. It'll also be done in a way that's dumb policy. After the SCOTUS ruling today upholding the health care mandate, I don't know if the administration prefers to bask in the glow of 'winning' or would rather divert attention away from an unpopular law. Just don't discount the possibility of a cap and trade announcement coming to a campaign near you.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Environmental(ist-induced) Disasters
Unintended consequences are a wonderful source of intrigue and entertainment to me. I absolutely love them. At night, we cuddle up (we alternate big spoon) and I whisper sweet nothings into their ear. I’ve got a thing for the study of unintended consequences.
In the realm of environmental policy, we saw a cap-and-trade measure* implemented under Bush I to reduce SOx emissions actually increase the usage of older, inefficient, and highly polluting plants than would have otherwise occurred in the free market. This was because older plants were grandfathered in, and did not have to be compliant with the new rules – only new plants did. This made new plants comparatively more expensive under the regulated system, even though they would have been cleaner. Although we benefitted long-term, the short-term result was actually more pollution.
While a reasonable person could have guessed this would have been the case, not all policymakers are reasonable. It’s relevant because pushback against nuclear power is occurring in both the United States and abroad (think Germany) following the horrific events in Japan. As can be expected, the immediate pushback has been to make new construction of nuclear power more difficult.
There are two problems with this – one specific to the nuclear industry, and the other for the energy sector as a whole. For nuclear power, it would be one thing if this were to cause us to start shutting down nuclear plants. But aside from New York Governor Cuomo’s push to shut down Indian Point (long a goal of his), I’m not hearing much push for this – more attention is being focused on moving away from constructing new nuclear power. However, if we make it more difficult to build new plants, we’re left with the crappy, unsafe ones. This is the exact opposite we want. The safest plants will always be new ones built by engineers privy to materials and information not available 40 or 50 years ago.
The second item to consider is that if we do start phasing out these old plants because we don’t trust them, how do we replace the lost electricity production? NIMBYism has prevented us from building wind turbines, coal-fired plants, dams, large-scale solar, and just about any other power production source you can think of. The outcome of this situation is more expensive energy, which kills economic growth. Uber-environmentalists may get excited about this, but they fail to consider that our replacement power is going to be coming from those old, nasty coal-fired plants and current peaker plants. This would also reduce the reserves that can be brought online in the event of increased demand, resulting in blackouts and their associated dangers (think Enron’s manipulations of the California energy market the impacts on the elderly stuck in unairconditioned apartments once the power goes out). That’s how unintended consequences work.
Full Disclosure: despite Brian Adornato’s attempts to dissuade my position, I want some more nuclear up in this bitch.
*For platitudinal conservatives, I hope this information doesn’t make your head explode. Yes, cap-and-trade was implemented in the early 1990s to reduce sulfur emissions from coal burning power plants under a Republican President by enforcing the EPA’s Clean Air Act. The final cost was ten times less than industry estimated it would be, and we made leaps and bounds in reducing acid rain while achieving millions of dollars in health care costs savings by reducing the incidences of asthma, bronchitis, and other respiratory diseases. Yeah, that actually happened.
In the realm of environmental policy, we saw a cap-and-trade measure* implemented under Bush I to reduce SOx emissions actually increase the usage of older, inefficient, and highly polluting plants than would have otherwise occurred in the free market. This was because older plants were grandfathered in, and did not have to be compliant with the new rules – only new plants did. This made new plants comparatively more expensive under the regulated system, even though they would have been cleaner. Although we benefitted long-term, the short-term result was actually more pollution.
While a reasonable person could have guessed this would have been the case, not all policymakers are reasonable. It’s relevant because pushback against nuclear power is occurring in both the United States and abroad (think Germany) following the horrific events in Japan. As can be expected, the immediate pushback has been to make new construction of nuclear power more difficult.
There are two problems with this – one specific to the nuclear industry, and the other for the energy sector as a whole. For nuclear power, it would be one thing if this were to cause us to start shutting down nuclear plants. But aside from New York Governor Cuomo’s push to shut down Indian Point (long a goal of his), I’m not hearing much push for this – more attention is being focused on moving away from constructing new nuclear power. However, if we make it more difficult to build new plants, we’re left with the crappy, unsafe ones. This is the exact opposite we want. The safest plants will always be new ones built by engineers privy to materials and information not available 40 or 50 years ago.
The second item to consider is that if we do start phasing out these old plants because we don’t trust them, how do we replace the lost electricity production? NIMBYism has prevented us from building wind turbines, coal-fired plants, dams, large-scale solar, and just about any other power production source you can think of. The outcome of this situation is more expensive energy, which kills economic growth. Uber-environmentalists may get excited about this, but they fail to consider that our replacement power is going to be coming from those old, nasty coal-fired plants and current peaker plants. This would also reduce the reserves that can be brought online in the event of increased demand, resulting in blackouts and their associated dangers (think Enron’s manipulations of the California energy market the impacts on the elderly stuck in unairconditioned apartments once the power goes out). That’s how unintended consequences work.
Full Disclosure: despite Brian Adornato’s attempts to dissuade my position, I want some more nuclear up in this bitch.
*For platitudinal conservatives, I hope this information doesn’t make your head explode. Yes, cap-and-trade was implemented in the early 1990s to reduce sulfur emissions from coal burning power plants under a Republican President by enforcing the EPA’s Clean Air Act. The final cost was ten times less than industry estimated it would be, and we made leaps and bounds in reducing acid rain while achieving millions of dollars in health care costs savings by reducing the incidences of asthma, bronchitis, and other respiratory diseases. Yeah, that actually happened.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Why the US Chamber of Commerce (Should) Support Clean Tech
Inconsistent tax policies are bad for business growth. This is a regular contention, explaining frustration when state governments provide tax breaks one year and revoke them the next. An uncertain business climate isn't good for encouraging investment. The transitive connection is that any economic uncertainty hampers business growth, ranging from serious debates over minimum wage increases to energy costs.
This creates a fascinating argument for increasing renewable energy development in the utility sector. According to the NY Times, wind energy development this year has dropped 72% from 2009. Renewable energy costs continue to drop, but the decrease in demand for fossil fuels during the recession has caused coal, oil, and gas prices to drop faster. However, once the economy begins growing again, we expect fossil fuel prices to reverse trend and escalate.
Reliance on natural gas and coal will always portend varying energy price inputs. This is particularly true for natural gas - coal is a more stable commodity. Therefore, coal would theoretically produce a better business climate. Yet renewable energy options provide even greater stability (wind turbines always cost the same amount to spin).
Following this logic, clean energy should enhance GDP growth, ceteris paribus. We can accept this if renewable energy costs are, on average, the same as that from coal or gas over time, because they provide more consistency. There should also be a comparative advantage if wind energy is slightly more expensive than the average cost of fossil fuel energy, because it's still providing that consistent climate that business investors love. The question is, how much more expensive before this is no longer the case? 3¢ per kWh? 1¢? So low that, although existent, it is negligible for all but the most energy intensive industries?
We know that fossil fuel scarcity will continue pushing coal and gas prices up over time. We also know that technological breakthroughs will continue to bend the cost curve of clean tech development down. So as clean and dirty options become increasingly cost competitive, the attractiveness of providing consistent input prices should push the case for wind, solar, and other options over the top for the business community. The caveat here is the necessity of foresight. Wind power is still more expensive to development today. The question is whether this justifies not planning for tomorrow.
This creates a fascinating argument for increasing renewable energy development in the utility sector. According to the NY Times, wind energy development this year has dropped 72% from 2009. Renewable energy costs continue to drop, but the decrease in demand for fossil fuels during the recession has caused coal, oil, and gas prices to drop faster. However, once the economy begins growing again, we expect fossil fuel prices to reverse trend and escalate.
Reliance on natural gas and coal will always portend varying energy price inputs. This is particularly true for natural gas - coal is a more stable commodity. Therefore, coal would theoretically produce a better business climate. Yet renewable energy options provide even greater stability (wind turbines always cost the same amount to spin).
Following this logic, clean energy should enhance GDP growth, ceteris paribus. We can accept this if renewable energy costs are, on average, the same as that from coal or gas over time, because they provide more consistency. There should also be a comparative advantage if wind energy is slightly more expensive than the average cost of fossil fuel energy, because it's still providing that consistent climate that business investors love. The question is, how much more expensive before this is no longer the case? 3¢ per kWh? 1¢? So low that, although existent, it is negligible for all but the most energy intensive industries?
We know that fossil fuel scarcity will continue pushing coal and gas prices up over time. We also know that technological breakthroughs will continue to bend the cost curve of clean tech development down. So as clean and dirty options become increasingly cost competitive, the attractiveness of providing consistent input prices should push the case for wind, solar, and other options over the top for the business community. The caveat here is the necessity of foresight. Wind power is still more expensive to development today. The question is whether this justifies not planning for tomorrow.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Punishing 'Green' States
Following the EPA's release of its design for regulating utility GHGs, the Senate is addressing the issue with renewed gusto. However, increased disbelief in climate change and adamant Republican opposition means a lot needs to happen for this bill to pass (in the end, Republicans would rather give the EPA greater control over utilities than accede to compromise).
So, what does a new bill need to guarantee passage? For starters, lots of giveaways to coal plants and pork to Senators on the fence. Liberal states like New York, Oregon, and California will receive fewer permit giveaways or other forms of financial assistance. Therefore, they will be subsidizing Oklahoma's coal plants after already investing in their own renewable energy and efficiency projects. On top of this, as a general rule you're also talking about the states with higher rates of productivity, ergo higher tax remittances.
Summary: states that pay the most in taxes will be funding pork projects in states that failed to take adequate steps to protect the environment in order to achieve votes necessary to regulate coal plants that will be exempt from regulations in the highest polluting states. Such is the danger of being a first mover when assistance is made available to actors that wait. Who else is excited about climate legislation finally passing in the US?
So, what does a new bill need to guarantee passage? For starters, lots of giveaways to coal plants and pork to Senators on the fence. Liberal states like New York, Oregon, and California will receive fewer permit giveaways or other forms of financial assistance. Therefore, they will be subsidizing Oklahoma's coal plants after already investing in their own renewable energy and efficiency projects. On top of this, as a general rule you're also talking about the states with higher rates of productivity, ergo higher tax remittances.
Summary: states that pay the most in taxes will be funding pork projects in states that failed to take adequate steps to protect the environment in order to achieve votes necessary to regulate coal plants that will be exempt from regulations in the highest polluting states. Such is the danger of being a first mover when assistance is made available to actors that wait. Who else is excited about climate legislation finally passing in the US?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)