Electoral sweeps mean nothing unless they rewire how we generate power and feed ourselves. Flipping utility commissions gives us the authority to break the private monopolies throttling clean energy. We must aggressively build publicly owned solar, wind, and next-generation nuclear power so the grid operates as a democratic commons.
This same political leverage must transform agriculture. Millions of acres are currently wasted growing crops for livestock in a wildly inefficient system rooted in animal suffering. By scaling precision fermentation and lab-cultured proteins under worker ownership, we can effortlessly feed humanity while freeing massive expanses of land to absorb carbon. We have the hard science to build a high-energy, ecologically grounded civilization that guarantees universal rights and respects all sentient life.
"One of the starkest results, at least to me, was what happened in states where permitting had been streamlined for renewable energy — Wisconsin, Michigan, New York. The Republicans campaigned against those laws streamlining those permits and lost handily."
At a few points Caroline sings the praises of rooftop solar. These systems certainly create "affordable" electric bills for folks like me with 7 kW PV. But it seems clear that "net-zero" electric homes, at least w/o efficiently dispatched batteries, fob off the expense of maintaining the T&D, and backup generation, onto the other customers. I think two recent studies from LBL and MIT show that at the state level. The MIT one concludes that utility solar has been neutral on rates and that wind has reduced rates. But all those projects were built with ITC and PTC incentives reducing the prices for the power they sold.
New stricter tariffs and other import regs are actually getting domestic PV manufacturing built, but at the price of greatly increased prices for modules. So we really need ITC or PTC back to offset that. I actually like a PTC, because it directly rewards what we want (clean electricity), instead of rewarding over-priced arrays over parking lots, etc.
Cheers for The Eugene Clean Energy Fund. It was modeled after Portland's Clean Energy Fund.
The Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) has raised more than $1.7 billion since its corporate retail tax collections began in 2019.
Key Financial Points
• Annual Revenue: While voters initially projected the fund to generate between $30 million and $60 million annually, it has far exceeded expectations by bringing in approximately $200 million per year.
• Funding Source: The revenue is generated through a 1% surcharge on the local retail sales of large corporations with over $1 billion in national revenue and at least $500,000 in local Portland sales.
• Future Allocations: The city's current Climate Investment Plan outlines $1.6 billion in spending through 2029 to support green energy initiatives, weatherization, transportation decarbonization, and urban forestry project
Speaking of EVs and former Governor Jay Inslee – I handed him the following note 9 days before the election.
Our Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is planning to reverse the progress you and our State Democratic caucus took 8 years to make.
Congresswoman MGP has implied to me that she will support a GOP plan to roll back fuel efficiency standards and to reduce EV availability.
Years ago, Congress gave our state the authority to require automakers to sell a modest number of EVs every year. MGP has implied to me she’ll vote to repeal that authority. The vote will likely occur before the new year.
I asked Marie to meet with my environmental delegation which included The American Lung Association, The Sierra Club, and Washington Conservation Action, but she declined.
At a fund raiser a month ago, I privately asked MGP, “who in SW Washington is asking you to allow cars to pollute more”? She dodged the question.
I suspect the reason she opposes EVs is because automakers will not automatically allow independent auto mechanics to access their proprietary diagnostic tools.
Consider asking Marie to vote NO on H.J.Res 202 , 205, and 211
Nice to see the Alaska shoutout. The Alaska energy nerd community is pretty excited about the new possibilities (JKT is pretty much guaranteed to win at this point). On the one hand, we're on the edge of actually running out of natural gas, and already high rates are shooting up higher. On the other hand, we have a bipartisan legislative majority (a weird Alaska thing) that has been somewhat willing to work on this for years, but stymied by the outsized power of a governor who vetoes absolutely everything. The grid serving most of the state is in the middle of a multi-stakeholder mandated IRP process with a bunch of public utilities, IPPs, and consumer groups. And the Iran war gives the oil-dependent state budget a bit of breathing room to fund programs.
Electoral sweeps mean nothing unless they rewire how we generate power and feed ourselves. Flipping utility commissions gives us the authority to break the private monopolies throttling clean energy. We must aggressively build publicly owned solar, wind, and next-generation nuclear power so the grid operates as a democratic commons.
This same political leverage must transform agriculture. Millions of acres are currently wasted growing crops for livestock in a wildly inefficient system rooted in animal suffering. By scaling precision fermentation and lab-cultured proteins under worker ownership, we can effortlessly feed humanity while freeing massive expanses of land to absorb carbon. We have the hard science to build a high-energy, ecologically grounded civilization that guarantees universal rights and respects all sentient life.
At one point, you two have an inconclusive discussion about whether the results actually endorse renewable projects. In https://heatmap.news/the-promise-and-peril-of-the-blue-wave-for-renewables, Jael Holzman notes,
"One of the starkest results, at least to me, was what happened in states where permitting had been streamlined for renewable energy — Wisconsin, Michigan, New York. The Republicans campaigned against those laws streamlining those permits and lost handily."
Then there is the victory of Sunrise Movement's Will Lawrence in Michigan. He seems to have waffled on large scale solar.https://grist.org/elections/will-lawrence-congress-sunrise-michigan-solar-data-centers/ So we'll see what his alternative is.
At a few points Caroline sings the praises of rooftop solar. These systems certainly create "affordable" electric bills for folks like me with 7 kW PV. But it seems clear that "net-zero" electric homes, at least w/o efficiently dispatched batteries, fob off the expense of maintaining the T&D, and backup generation, onto the other customers. I think two recent studies from LBL and MIT show that at the state level. The MIT one concludes that utility solar has been neutral on rates and that wind has reduced rates. But all those projects were built with ITC and PTC incentives reducing the prices for the power they sold.
New stricter tariffs and other import regs are actually getting domestic PV manufacturing built, but at the price of greatly increased prices for modules. So we really need ITC or PTC back to offset that. I actually like a PTC, because it directly rewards what we want (clean electricity), instead of rewarding over-priced arrays over parking lots, etc.
Cheers for The Eugene Clean Energy Fund. It was modeled after Portland's Clean Energy Fund.
The Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) has raised more than $1.7 billion since its corporate retail tax collections began in 2019.
Key Financial Points
• Annual Revenue: While voters initially projected the fund to generate between $30 million and $60 million annually, it has far exceeded expectations by bringing in approximately $200 million per year.
• Funding Source: The revenue is generated through a 1% surcharge on the local retail sales of large corporations with over $1 billion in national revenue and at least $500,000 in local Portland sales.
• Future Allocations: The city's current Climate Investment Plan outlines $1.6 billion in spending through 2029 to support green energy initiatives, weatherization, transportation decarbonization, and urban forestry project
Speaking of EVs and former Governor Jay Inslee – I handed him the following note 9 days before the election.
Our Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is planning to reverse the progress you and our State Democratic caucus took 8 years to make.
Congresswoman MGP has implied to me that she will support a GOP plan to roll back fuel efficiency standards and to reduce EV availability.
Years ago, Congress gave our state the authority to require automakers to sell a modest number of EVs every year. MGP has implied to me she’ll vote to repeal that authority. The vote will likely occur before the new year.
I asked Marie to meet with my environmental delegation which included The American Lung Association, The Sierra Club, and Washington Conservation Action, but she declined.
At a fund raiser a month ago, I privately asked MGP, “who in SW Washington is asking you to allow cars to pollute more”? She dodged the question.
I suspect the reason she opposes EVs is because automakers will not automatically allow independent auto mechanics to access their proprietary diagnostic tools.
Consider asking Marie to vote NO on H.J.Res 202 , 205, and 211
Nice to see the Alaska shoutout. The Alaska energy nerd community is pretty excited about the new possibilities (JKT is pretty much guaranteed to win at this point). On the one hand, we're on the edge of actually running out of natural gas, and already high rates are shooting up higher. On the other hand, we have a bipartisan legislative majority (a weird Alaska thing) that has been somewhat willing to work on this for years, but stymied by the outsized power of a governor who vetoes absolutely everything. The grid serving most of the state is in the middle of a multi-stakeholder mandated IRP process with a bunch of public utilities, IPPs, and consumer groups. And the Iran war gives the oil-dependent state budget a bit of breathing room to fund programs.