Despite climate change, renewable energy not 'slam dunk'

Gordon L. Weil

When it comes to climate change and renewable energy, there's some good news, but a lot of bad news.

Most people would probably agree that if we could produce energy without harming the environment and at lower cost than the traditional fuels, we should do it. But we keep running into problems making that virtually impossible. It's no slam dunk.

After the G7 meeting, where he missed the environmental session, President Trump made clear why he opposes measures to deal with climate change. He knows there's a problem, but he has a higher priority than dealing with it.

"I feel the United States has tremendous wealth. The wealth is under its feet." he said. "We can't let that wealth be taken away." Cutting back on fossil fuel use to reduce global warming could undermine America's wealth. The wealth is for today; dealing with climate change is a "dream," left for a later day.

Trump's policy is deeply rooted in the past. He accepts environmental sacrifices as the price to pay for expanding the use of coal, oil and natural gas. This is one of the central elements of his presidency.

Part of that policy continues using the federal tax system to subsidize the oil industry, while cutting back breaks for renewable resources. That's big government at work. Under a conservative approach, the market would pit renewables against fossil fuels in a fair contest.

Another issue involving renewable resources arises in Maine. Central Maine Power proposes the "New England Clean Energy Connect." This transmission line is supposed to carry hydro power from Quebec to the Massachusetts market. Curiously, some of its supporters have opposed more hydro development in Maine.

By contributing to the reduced use of fossil fuels elsewhere, the project may have environmental merit. But the project, using its Maine corridor, also imposes environmental costs, which have not been fully evaluated. The decision thus far has simply been that its claimed benefits are enough to justify it.

In part, support for the corridor is an obvious reaction to Maine's loss of the major off-shore wind generation project proposed by Norway's Statoil, which then successfully moved it to Scotland. It was blocked by Gov. LePage. Now Gov. Mills has said of the new proposal, "We can't say no to every single project."

Maine is a national leader in environmental protection. But its position may be degraded if it looks like it is reducing its concern or can be induced to endorse a project by dubious payments from CMP's parent, which can expect large, ratepayer-funded profits extending far into the future.

CMP will be able to raise its rates at ratepayer expense over the next 40 years, while its annual payments to Maine are fixed and will lose almost all their value over that period.

Let's be realistic. Trump's view prevails while he is president, and oil industry subsidies are unlikely ever to disappear. Mills does not want Maine to be seen as opposing major private-sector projects, especially the first one of her administration, and the corridor could have some environmental benefits.

Besides, middle income people are not gaining in the American economy and renewables raise utility rates – or at least that's what people think. Even the thin CMP payments might help a little.

But look at Los Angeles. Its electric utility, a public power entity, has a large-scale, 25-year contract for solar power, including storage batteries to ensure reliability. According to press reports, customers would pay 3.3 cents per kilowatt-hour, less than half what Mainers now pay.

The city leadership hasn't yet approved the contract. A major labor union opposes it, arguing it will cost 400 jobs. It rejects statements by city officials that none will be laid off. Union leaders make the false claim that solar is unreliable, despite the batteries.

The Industrial Revolution itself was fought by this kind of objection. Of course, the utility should pursue a policy that does not displace workers. It should work with the union. But change should not be blocked by a backward-looking energy policy, wherever it occurs.

The common thread of Trump's policy, the Maine transmission corridor and even the L.A. solar project is that they are big. Politicians like to land big fish. And if a policy involves transmission, federal policy makes the rewards so great that big-scale projects are avidly pursued.

Yet the future is likely to depend on smaller, decentralized generators, closer to the customers served, probably renewable, less costly and more reliable.

This future requires policies going beyond fossil fuels, but also wisely evaluating big renewable projects.

Growing gaps in wealth, age raise long-term economic threat

Gordon L. Weil

How do you picture the typical American of the future?

A prosperous tech specialist, assured of a challenging and well-paid job in a thriving environment?

Or retired or nearing retirement, living on a tight budget in uncertain health?

Because of two widening gaps – between the wealthy and everybody else and the old and everybody else – the second alternative may turn out to be the more accurate vision of the future.

Maine may be one of the leading examples of at least one of those gaps, the one between a growing senior population and a declining population of young people.

It is the oldest state, based on median age. By next year, it will have more people over 65 than under 18. It is the first state to reach this point. The U.S. as a whole will get there by 2035. What's true for this country is also the case for developed economies around the world.

The reasons are obvious. With increased wealth, people have fewer children per family. Improved medical science helps extend life.

Historically, people had large families, with the younger generation able to support their parents when they aged and stopped working. With short life spans, the period during which such help was needed was relatively brief.

Support from children gradually gave way to employer pensions, Social Security and Medicare. These programs are financed by contributions from profits and taxes from a growing economy. Economic growth itself was driven by more people demanding more goods and services.

As the number of children per family approaches zero population growth – when people only replace themselves and not add to the total number of people – how does the population increase?

People in places where the economy was underdeveloped, forcing them to accept subsistence living, moved to places offering more freedom and opportunity and giving them hope for a better life. Massive immigrant populations moved within countries and among countries.

Large-scale immigration was eventually slowed by restrictive national legislation, aimed at cutting the flow. In the U.S., reduced immigration was offset by the post-World War II baby boom, whose effect is now disappearing.

The growth in the American economy and the country's leading role in the world economy led to greater prosperity. Federal taxation was used to promote economic development as well as to fund government programs designed to meet the needs of older people.

Even as high tax rates were lowered, opposition grew to government spending to ensure that seniors and low-income people could be helped to survive above subsistence levels. In the past three decades, taxes have been cut for the wealthiest end of the population, while workers continue to contribute to income support programs.

The gap between the most wealthy and everybody else has been justified on the basis of the claim that the rich will use their tax-shielded wealth to create new jobs. That theory works to a limited degree, but much of the tax savings goes simply to support the accumulation of increased wealth.

The income gap is a cause of increased political partisanship. While unemployment is now low, incomes have not grown to any significant degree. Because of the uneven rewards, thanks to the tax system, the rich get richer and the rest of the country gets frustrated. Tempers flare and both sides become more rigid.

With a stagnating work force, payroll taxes will not be enough to finance Social Security and Medicare. Wealthier taxpayers are reluctant to see their taxes increased to cover the inevitable shortfalls. Instead, many of them want even more tax cuts and less government.

They argue incorrectly that federal taxes are among the highest in the world. They provide no solutions to meeting the needs of lower-income workers and seniors with less government support. A mass economy like the U.S. cannot rely mainly on charity.

There are solutions. First, tax cutting must stop, especially for the wealthiest. Taxes, not more debt, should pay for what voters need and want .

Congress should adopt an immigration policy, allowing for more new Americans who can contribute to economic growth. The government can ensure that immigrants are capable of working and are not simply seeking public assistance.

Local centers should be developed for older Americans to obtain necessary support and dignity of life based on reasonable costs, pleasant surroundings and economies of scale.

Maine has already shown it can develop into such a center. But the national media reports that it lacks enough young workers to provide care services to the aging population. One obvious answer: immigrants.

States use courts to override president, Congress

Gordon L. Weil 

Last week, Maine joined other states in two federal court cases seeking to overturn Trump Administration moves.

By now, that's routine. States frequently team up to oppose actions by the executive branch. The party doesn't matter. States governed by Democrats challenge President Trump and states governed by Republicans are still chasing President Obama.

The result is a new form of government that they don't teach about in civics class. In fact, it is an entirely new layer of government not foreseen in the Constitution. States directly insert themselves in federal lawmaking and use the courts to approve, reject or even modify the law.

Here's how it works. First, Congress passes a bill, and it is signed by the president. That rarely happens unless the House and Senate majorities and the president belong to the same party.

The bill may allow regulators or an executive agency to issue rules to fill in the details not contained in the bill. Eventually, the rules are issued.

In a state under the control of the minority party in Congress, which had opposed the new law, its attorney general asks a federal court to decide that the law or its rules violate the Constitution. That state is likely to be joined by other states under control of the same minority party.

That action may prompt states supporting the congressional action to band together to enter the case on the other side. The congressional debate is transferred to court.

The case goes to a federal district court, composed of a single judge. The complaining state will try to select a district court where a judge will be sympathetic to its position.

While some may fear that judges make purely political decisions, its easy to forecast their decisions based on their known views or party affiliation. For example, a judge who generally defers to decisions made by the president makes predictable rulings about executive powers.

The district judge's opinion will be appealed. But the complainants may urge the judge to order a delay in the law's effective date until the appeals are completed. That could keep it from being applied for many months or even years. In short, a single judge can frustrate the will of Congress or the president.

Federal judges serve for life, and a president and supportive Senate will try to get people onto the bench who represent their partisan views. Remaining on the bench for decades, they can block laws adopted years later by the other party, when it is in power.

The case may eventually work its way from the district court through an appeals court to the U.S. Supreme Court. The nine justices, appointed for life, or really only a five-judge majority of them, have the last word on the law.

Take the decision on the Affordable Care Act. The Court ruled it is constitutional by a vote of 5-4. Some states are again challenging it in hopes that the Supreme Court, with a couple of new Trump appointees, might change its mind.

Justices are supposed to respect the Court's previous decisions to ensure that people can rely on them in the future. But as the political makeup of the Court changes over time, this principle is increasingly ignored.

Thus, federal laws may be challenged, suspended for long periods or blocked by states linked with the losing side in Congress. A law properly adopted by Congress may be overturned by the swing vote of a single Supreme Court justice, in office for life after having been confirmed by a Senate majority of as little as one vote.

The mere fact that Maine can join two multi-state federal appeals in a single week is a good indication of how routine this new form government decision-making has become.

This "states plus courts" decision-making can deprive the president and Congress of their constitutional roles. In effect, this process is an addition to the intended "checks and balances" of the Constitution. It overrides them.

Congress could limit the powers of courts, but that's unlikely. Voters have the only power to stop this process.

Few voters pay attention to how candidates for president or senator would handle judicial appointments, except perhaps positions on a wedge issue like abortion. Do voters recognize that a state attorney-general, elected either directly or indirectly, as in Maine, can have a major influence on federal laws?

This form of lawmaking usually escapes the public view. It's time for voters and the media to pay more attention to this almost invisible, but considerable, power.