Have you heard about the DOE question list? There's plenty of wing flapping in the media over the umbrage of the Trumpsters to question the inner workings of a bloated political agency like the U.S. Department of Energy. You probably won't have to look far to find it. It's been likened to a "witch hunt" because it ham-handedly asked for names of DOE employees.
Whatever. I'm far more concerned about the majority of the questions that deal with the way in which DOE has funneled my tax money into dubious "clean energy" programs over the past 8 years, and what there is to show for it. Insistence that the whole pack of questions be disregarded because some people don't like the way a few were phrased is political posturing of the worse kind. It's ad hominem deflection for a bunch of questions the Obama administration's clean energy minions don't want to answer. But, the clean energy party is over now. Employees who strongly back their own climate change science probably won't want to work there anymore. And for the few who want to continue their employment while insubordinately sabotaging the directives they receive from on high... well, shame on you! You're probably setting yourself up for a righteous firing.
The DOE has been having a politically-biased fun fest with the taxpayers' money for the past 8 years and has bloated itself up to epic proportions. It's been one payday after another for companies styling themselves as "renewable" so that they may be annointed king by the DOE in order to make a huge profit. It's gotta end. Stab the bloated beast!
Whatever. I'm far more concerned about the majority of the questions that deal with the way in which DOE has funneled my tax money into dubious "clean energy" programs over the past 8 years, and what there is to show for it. Insistence that the whole pack of questions be disregarded because some people don't like the way a few were phrased is political posturing of the worse kind. It's ad hominem deflection for a bunch of questions the Obama administration's clean energy minions don't want to answer. But, the clean energy party is over now. Employees who strongly back their own climate change science probably won't want to work there anymore. And for the few who want to continue their employment while insubordinately sabotaging the directives they receive from on high... well, shame on you! You're probably setting yourself up for a righteous firing.
The DOE has been having a politically-biased fun fest with the taxpayers' money for the past 8 years and has bloated itself up to epic proportions. It's been one payday after another for companies styling themselves as "renewable" so that they may be annointed king by the DOE in order to make a huge profit. It's gotta end. Stab the bloated beast!
So, here's one take on "the list" that attempts to comment on the questions. Except this "expert" got the facts completely wrong on the sole question that I found interesting.
To add confusion to chaos, there appears to be two different copies of "the list" being circulated in the media. While the questions are the same, their order, and assignment within DOE, appears differently. The question below is #57 on one list, and #21 on the other.
It would help immensely if the authors of the list had managed to cite statutes correctly. Is this what we get to look forward to for the next 4 years?
To add confusion to chaos, there appears to be two different copies of "the list" being circulated in the media. While the questions are the same, their order, and assignment within DOE, appears differently. The question below is #57 on one list, and #21 on the other.
It would help immensely if the authors of the list had managed to cite statutes correctly. Is this what we get to look forward to for the next 4 years?
Can you provide a copy of any Participation Agreement under Section 1221 of EP Act signed by the Department?
The "expert" got his answer to this question wrong because not only does the question list the wrong statute, but the "expert's" quick research of this section of the Energy Policy Act only found PART of the referenced statute.
We’re way down in the weeds now. This section of the EP Act allows three or more contiguous states to establish a regional transmission siting agency. Not sure why they’ve asked this, but it does add to their knowledge of the projected vague transmission grid actions, which appears like it could be a big money drain.
Sec. 1221 of the Energy Policy Act (hint - search "1221" in this link, don't rely on third party excerpts of this section, they're not complete) provides the framework for the DOE to prepare triennial "studies" of transmission congestion and designate National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors, which would (on paper) give FERC backstop authority to site and permit transmission in these corridors. (Except when challenged in court Sec. 1221 proved completely worthless -- doesn't work as DOE and FERC tried to interpret it.) It also provides for that "interstate compact" thing that no state wants to get involved in.
Neither one of these statutory responsibilities require DOE to sign a "Participation Agreement." DOE has statutory authority to study and designate corridors. FERC has backstop siting authority if a state fails to act. States have statutory authority to enter into compacts. DOE does not "participate" in compacts, nor siting and permitting transmission projects in NIET corridors.
But, DOE *does* have authority to enter into agreements with third party transmission developers under Section 1222 of the EP Act, Third-Party Financing. In a nutshell, Sec. 1222 allows the DOE to "participate" in transmission projects owned and financed by third parties. DOE would need a "Participation Agreement" to participate in a project under this section of the statute.
And DOE announced just such a participation earlier this year, and signed a Participation Agreement. Said "Participation Agreement" stinks like collusion. Affected landowner groups in Arkansas have filed a complaint in federal court alleging that DOE overstepped its statutory authority.
Ya think that's perhaps where that question was intended to go? Proofreading saves lives! Let's hope the typo gets corrected.
And there's another question on that list I find really interesting.
Neither one of these statutory responsibilities require DOE to sign a "Participation Agreement." DOE has statutory authority to study and designate corridors. FERC has backstop siting authority if a state fails to act. States have statutory authority to enter into compacts. DOE does not "participate" in compacts, nor siting and permitting transmission projects in NIET corridors.
But, DOE *does* have authority to enter into agreements with third party transmission developers under Section 1222 of the EP Act, Third-Party Financing. In a nutshell, Sec. 1222 allows the DOE to "participate" in transmission projects owned and financed by third parties. DOE would need a "Participation Agreement" to participate in a project under this section of the statute.
And DOE announced just such a participation earlier this year, and signed a Participation Agreement. Said "Participation Agreement" stinks like collusion. Affected landowner groups in Arkansas have filed a complaint in federal court alleging that DOE overstepped its statutory authority.
Ya think that's perhaps where that question was intended to go? Proofreading saves lives! Let's hope the typo gets corrected.
And there's another question on that list I find really interesting.
What is the goal of the grid modernization effort? Is there some terminal point to this effort? Is its genesis statutory or something else?
Assuming that there are no typos in that question, what is DOE's "grid modernization effort"? Where does the millions this program hands out for R&D come from? And what statute authorized DOE to set up this program and use it to justify all this spending?
How does the work of this "initiative" dovetail with the work done by regional transmission organizations that plan and operate the electric grid and electric markets? How much of what DOE's initiative does is simply hypothetical repetition of the work the RTOs already do? Electric consumers fund RTOs, and then they're hit again in their taxes to fund DOE's repetitive planning and studies. And then there's even conflicting programs within DOE. How does its "Grid Wind Integration" program align with its "participation" in supposedly "wind integrating" transmission projects under Sec. 1222? Has DOE's "participation" in a 1222 project been vetted under the department's own grid wind integration standards?
Who's in charge of electric transmission in this country? States have authority over siting and permitting of new transmission. FERC has jurisdiction over interstate transmission rates. RTOs have responsibility granted through FERC to plan and operate the regional grids. What statutory role does DOE have regarding transmission? Pretty much none. DOE is the political house of federal energy concerns. What it does is politically motivated. Political fortunes at DOE can change every 4 years. Sometimes the change isn't very noticeable. This time it will be. But not just because the incoming administration has radically different ideas. Part of what makes this change so extreme is the bloated nature of today's DOE, fueled by political actions taken outside of Congressional purview over the past eight years.
We need to slim down this disgusting bloat and statutorily define who is doing what in Washington. Allowing a little sunshine into DOE's actions under Sec. 1222 of the EP Act is a good start.
How does the work of this "initiative" dovetail with the work done by regional transmission organizations that plan and operate the electric grid and electric markets? How much of what DOE's initiative does is simply hypothetical repetition of the work the RTOs already do? Electric consumers fund RTOs, and then they're hit again in their taxes to fund DOE's repetitive planning and studies. And then there's even conflicting programs within DOE. How does its "Grid Wind Integration" program align with its "participation" in supposedly "wind integrating" transmission projects under Sec. 1222? Has DOE's "participation" in a 1222 project been vetted under the department's own grid wind integration standards?
Who's in charge of electric transmission in this country? States have authority over siting and permitting of new transmission. FERC has jurisdiction over interstate transmission rates. RTOs have responsibility granted through FERC to plan and operate the regional grids. What statutory role does DOE have regarding transmission? Pretty much none. DOE is the political house of federal energy concerns. What it does is politically motivated. Political fortunes at DOE can change every 4 years. Sometimes the change isn't very noticeable. This time it will be. But not just because the incoming administration has radically different ideas. Part of what makes this change so extreme is the bloated nature of today's DOE, fueled by political actions taken outside of Congressional purview over the past eight years.
We need to slim down this disgusting bloat and statutorily define who is doing what in Washington. Allowing a little sunshine into DOE's actions under Sec. 1222 of the EP Act is a good start.
RSS Feed