President Donald Trump’s opening week included a flurry of executive orders seeking to make good on his promise to restore America’s energy dominance, sidelined by the Biden administration.
While we should all applaud the president’s vision for a secure energy future, Californians should be especially pleased. Even before taking office, the “Trump effect” helped restore a bit of sanity in the Golden State.
Five days before President Trump’s inauguration, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)rescinded its application for a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency to extend its electric vehicle mandate to freight trains, citing “uncertainty presented by the incoming administration.” The first-of-its-kind regulation would have phased out diesel-fueled switch, industrial, and passenger trains by 2030 and freight trains by 2035 in favor of zero-emission trains.
Though now paused, CARB’s rationale for the rail electrification mandate mirrors broader green energy policies, and California will likely seek to revive it under a future Democratic administration. They shouldn’t.
CARB claimed the rule would be a net economic and environmental benefit, but ignored major costs. A report from my organization highlighted the substantial infrastructure upgrades needed to replace diesel engines with electric or hydrogen models. Further, transitioning to electric trains would have challenged the state’s already strained electricity grid. Lastly, the report shows that the emissions reductions CARB touted were greatly exaggerated.
California already has the highest electricity prices in the continental U.S. With more and more devices connecting to the grid, demand is expected to grow by 76% over the next couple of decades.
At the same time, California’s grid has become increasingly unreliable due to policies that force more and more renewables onto the system, exacerbating the risks of continued brownouts and blackouts.
The conversion of rail to zero-emission technologies that rely heavily on electrification would contribute to these problems. The CARB rule assumed the existence of energy infrastructure that simply does not exist.
New transmission and distribution line upgrades and incremental power generation would be necessary to accommodate the load growth necessary to comply with this mandate. Much of that new electricity generation would likely come from natural gas, which already accounts for 39% of the state’s electricity.
CARB’s claim that the switch to electric trains would reduce particulate matter by 7,400 tons, nitrogen oxides by 386,300, and greenhouse gas emissions by 21.6 million metric tons from 2023-2050 is questionable at best. There is no way that power systems, even in California, will be 100% renewable in the timeframe the rule was scheduled to take effect.
And, as already mentioned, new generation capacity would certainly include natural gas.
CARB’s suggested that hydrogen could serve as an alternative to electrification. This switch would also require additional upstream infrastructure, increase costs, and put upward pressure on emissions.
This new hydrogen would not even be “green,” since production from non-conventional resources is nowhere near the scale of hydrogen sourced from natural gas or coal gasification. Developing hydrogen pipelines could also drive emissions and costs higher.
CARB’s locomotive regulation was a high-cost, low-reward gamble. Thanks to President Trump, Californians dodged another disastrous energy policy — before he even took office.
Instead of trying to “Trump-proof” California, Gov. Gavin Newsom should be grateful for the opportunity to scrap more of Sacramento’s costly regulations.
Arizona’s population has exploded over the past three decades, thanks, in part, to movement from states under the control of leftist politicians.
Recently, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) shared data from the Internal Revenue Service, showing that almost 1.5 million individuals have migrated to Arizona from other states, between the years of 1990-2021.
The Grand Canyon State’s gain has been due to other left-leaning states’ loss. California, for example, has shed more than 4.6 million people during that timeframe. New York lost over 4.6 million people as well, and Illinois said ‘goodbye’ to another 2 million individuals.
It wasn’t just Arizona that benefited from the migration patterns of people for the past thirty years. More than 3.7 million people made their way to Florida, and another 2.6 million individuals relocated to Texas.
In an op-ed for Newsweek, Edward J. Pinto, the Senior Fellow and Codirector of the AEI Housing Center, wrote, “For the past 30 years, progressive policies have fueled a mass exodus of the citizens of California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts, whether with high-, middle-, or blue collar incomes. From 1990 to 2021, net domestic migration fleeing their states has totaled 13 million… Meanwhile, the red states of Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Arizona, Tennessee, Nevada, and South Carolina have had net in-migration of 13 million over the same period.”
Pinto added, “If these blue state governors want to reverse this mass out migration, time is of the essence. They should focus on enacting the kinds of policies that drew their erstwhile residents to Florida and Texas: lowering taxes, getting tough on crime, promoting deregulation, reforming public pensions, enacting school choice, enforcing immigration laws, helping blue-collar workers find good paying jobs, ending rent control where prevalent, and adopting light-touch density (LTD) and livable urban villages(LUV). LTD and LUV legalize homes built by the free market that are affordable and inclusionary.”
Former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, who served eight years as the state’s chief executive, reacted to a recent article from Fox News about the failure of California’s Gavin Newsom to end homelessness in San Francisco, stating, “The 21st anniversary is coming up… for California residents who are sick of ‘leaders’ who talk big and deliver nothing, there’s a simple solution: UHaul.com.”
The 21st anniversary is coming up… for California residents who are sick of “leaders” who talk big and deliver nothing, there’s a simple solution: https://t.co/UOGgmZupCOpic.twitter.com/DpEyTdxHmi
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen told AZ Free News, “Approximately 200 people move to Arizona every day. If you ask why, they will tell you because it is a safe, good place to raise a family and educate your kids. They will also say things like, it is a great place to do business, with low taxes and fewer regulations. What they are really saying is that the state they are fleeing has bad public policy and Arizona has good public policy. This is a direct reflection of the laws passed by the Republican-led legislature.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
“It’s an absolutely sh*t situation.” That is the assessment of Norway’s energy minister, Terje Aasland, about his country’s electricity costs rising to record levels due to its exports of power to the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark and other European countries.
It is an outcome that many warned the Norwegian government would come about as the decisions were made to build the interconnects to export power into the European Union and the UK. Those critics were of course ignored as those in charge of Norway’s fortunes at the time felt compelled to genuflect to the demands of the EU and other globalist organizations.
Norway derives the vast majority of its electricity from hydropower, which currently provides 90% of the country’s power generation. Most of the remainder comes from wind power, and the nation enjoys a large excess of generating capacity on most days. Thus, all other factors being equal, it made some financial sense to establish those interconnects to sell the surplus into other countries.
But it only made sense when those other countries were taking care to ensure the continuing health and adequacy of their own electric grids. That certainly has not been the case in either the UK or Germany, whose governments have in recent years chosen to discard a former wealth of reliable baseload capacity provided by coal and nuclear plants in favor of relying too heavily on intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar.
Now, when the wind stops blowing and the sun isn’t shining, those customers of Norwegian power exports drain the host country’s surplus, causing the extremely high energy costs to flow back upstream, hitting Norwegians with abnormally high utility bills. It all came to a head this week when low wind speeds, combined with abnormally cold temperatures on the European mainland, caused power rates in Norway to spike to as high as €1.12 ($1.18) per kilowatt hour (kwh).
By comparison, the average electricity rate per kwh in New York is around 22 cents, while Texans typically pay around 15 cents per kwh. What that price spike meant for Norwegians on December 12 is that taking a 5-minute warm shower would have cost them $5. Doing the same in Texas would have cost around 16 cents.
Naturally, public outrage in Norway over these needlessly high electricity rates is now causing policymakers there to run for political cover. The Financial Times reports that both the ruling leftwing Labour Party and conservative Progress Party are now making plans to campaign next year on platforms to limit or end the export of electricity via these international interconnections.
That is a prospect that no doubt sparks fear in the hearts of the central planners in both Germany and the UK, where electricity imports from Norway play a central role in their own emissions reduction plans. Those plans involve the willful destruction of reliable baseload power stations and forcing power costs to dramatically increase, which in turn results in heavy industries like steelmaking and other manufacturing to leave the country. In that way, these governments are essentially exporting their emissions to China, whose own government is only too happy to serve as home to these heavy industries and power them with the hundreds of coal-fired power plants they build each year.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom and his fellow Democrats have pursued essentially the same strategies in California in this century, with predictable results: Californians pay among the highest power rates in the United States as their power grid has become overloaded with intermittent generation and increasingly reliant on imports from other states. Rather than exporting its emissions to China, California exports them to Nevada and Utah and other U.S. states.
The Biden administration has attempted to take the entire country down this same economically ruinous path for the past four years. Fortunately, voters awakened just in time this year to head off the most damaging impacts now being seen in Germany and the UK.
For Norway, is this an example of the law of unintended consequences setting in? Sure, to some extent. But it is also a clear example of entirely foreseeable consequences stemming from poor policymaking by multiple national governments flowing across borders. This “sh*t situation” was all avoidable, and frankly should have been.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
If you can’t get people to like your ideas, change the system. That’s the clear agenda behind the Prop 140 scheme that seeks to bring ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries to Arizona. And there’s no more hiding it.
At a recent news conference organized by the Prop 140 campaign, Kimber Lanning—founder and CEO of a group called Local First Arizona that wants to build “equitable” systems for Arizona’s businesses—let the mask slip. Lanning revealed that when other states have adopted the reforms included in Prop 140, they have been able to move forward on transformational ideas like climate action plans and providing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.
Wait. Aren’t ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries supposed to lead to more moderation in the government? That’s what the backers of Prop 140 continue to push. But since when did climate action plans and special benefits for illegal immigrants become moderate?
Therin lies the true motivations behind Prop 140. Liberal billionaires from Colorado and others states around the country are pouring millions and millions into Arizona to pass this initiative in an effort to turn Arizona blue. They envision a system anchored around ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries will put them in charge of the political and policy agenda here in Arizona.
And in their zeal for power and control, they don’t even recognize the underlying hubris and irony of their entire campaign…
Arizona may soon be faced with an overhaul of its election system if a current ballot measure passes this November.
In the upcoming General Election, state voters will decide the fate of Proposition 140, which would transform Arizona’s election system into what has been referred to as “a California-style election scheme built around ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries.”
According to the No on 140 campaign, which is being co-chaired by Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and former Arizona State Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould, if passed by voters, Prop 140 would:
“Allow one partisan politician (the Arizona Secretary of State) to decide how many candidates qualify for the general election ballot for every single contest, including his or her own race.
Result in some races where candidates from only one political party appear on the general election ballot.
Force voters to navigate two completely different voting systems on the same ballot, with some races requiring voters to rank candidates under a rank choice voting system and others that do not.
Increase tabulation errors, create longer lines at the polls, and significantly delay election results.”
Just recently, this opposition group released a bipartisan list of organizations from around Arizona that were encouraging their followers to vote against Proposition 140. These groups included the Coconino County Democrats, the Gila County Democratic Party, Heritage Action for America, Goldwater Institute, Republican Party of Arizona, League of Women Voters, and the Libertarian Party of Arizona.
In a piece for the Goldwater Institute, Gould wrote, “Americans are understandably concerned about the current acrimony and division in politics. But rather than addressing this problem in a focused, thoughtful manner, Prop 140 takes a sledgehammer to the Arizona Constitution by imposing ranked choice voting and jungle primaries on Arizonans.”
Trent England, the founder and executive director of Save Our States and co-chairman of the Stop RCV Coalition, added, “Ranked-choice voting makes the entire election process more complicated and less transparent. That is why so many places that have tried RSV have gotten rid of it – something Alaska voters are poised to do this year. Yet the onslaught continues, thanks to just a few billionaires who would make our elections worse.”
Thanks to a heated legal battle that ping-ponged between the state’s supreme court and superior court, both sides have an extremely limited window to make their case to voters why Arizona should or should not enact this system to replace our current elections operations.
Last week, the Arizona Supreme Court made its final ruling in a matter concerning tens of thousands of duplicate signatures that threatened to upend this measure for voter consideration. Despite a special master’s determination that 99% of the signatures were, in fact, duplicates, the state’s high court allowed Prop 140 to go forward before the Arizona electorate. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club accused the proponents of this proposition of “obstruct[ing] and delay[ing] the review of the duplicate signatures for over a month.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
