“The Deep State is cancer-like in nature. Like cancer, it must be rooted out before it metastasizes—as it would have if subject to another four years of a Harris (Obama 4.0?) Administration.”
“It’s time to go big. Scrap DOE and part-out whatever missions are worth saving. And whatever missions are deemed worth saving should be saved only with thorough scrutiny of zero-based budgeting.”
Our March 2017 post, DOE’s EERE: Reform Ideas for Secretary Perry, stated that while “a trace of consumer focus still exists,” the department’s heavy bias was towards society-wide electrification under the guise of “Net Zero”.
Whatever trace of consumer focus may be remaining within DOE is not worth salvaging. In fact, eliminating the pipe dream of an all-electric society would likely save US citizens $18 to 29 trillion in capital costs alone. Other analysts have estimated far higher cost inflation, while others conclude that total electrification cannot be accomplished at any cost.
While there was some initial lip service about DOE reform from a few politicians (which we documented in the above article), little actual reform took place. Congress slow-walked appointments, while DOE ‘s so-called “career professional” staff resorted to traditional tactics of placating eventual appointees. And what reforms did occur under then Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE) Daniel Simmons (not sworn in until January 16, 2019) were quickly jettisoned by the Biden (mis)Administration.
We tried again to make our case on October 24, 2019, in EERE Reform: Brouillette’s Turn (‘deep decarbonization’ threat still alive). Little if anything meaningful occurred under Dan Brouillette either. In fact, he moved to the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and was soon fired.
Brouillette has also been mentioned as possibly resuming being at DOE as Secretary. If so, since EEI stands to gain immensely through vehicle and building electrification, Brouillette at least has some major explaining to “we the people” for differentiating himself from the swamp.
Real Reform Opportunity
The incoming Administration can and should do far more than just trim back the overgrown greenery; it should serve the legitimate interests of the American citizenry and American prosperity. However. details in our previous recommendations (cited above), are worth reviewing by the incoming Trump Administration if for no other reason than to document historical mistakes and avoid them going forward. Regardless, our old recommendations are no longer sufficiently ambitious in terms of best serving the American public and drastically reducing the National Debt’s deadly inflation.
But how should we move forward for “deep reform” versus the meager results from before? After all, the incoming Trump 2.0 Administration much better understands the depth and breadth of the Deep State and its joined-at-the-hip “Uniparty” cohorts. The options range from modest “reform” to scrapping DOE and parting out its truly vital missions to other Federal agencies or private sector competition.
In essence, it’s time to go big. Scrap DOE and part-out whatever missions are worth saving. And whatever missions are deemed worth saving should be saved only with thorough scrutiny of zero-based budgeting.
Given we the people hold the House, and lead the Senate, this is a unique opportunity that must be exploited to the full extent feasible. After all, the world has fundamentally changed since DOE was formed to address certain issues: low supplies and scarcity, coupled with cartel behavior by foreign actors. Today we have robust supplies that mainly just need regulatory relief.
“With money we will get men”
A little Thomas Jefferson and Karl von Clausewitz guidance may provide instruction to get us started. Thomas Jefferson cited those words “With money we will get men” in Volume 4 of Notes on Virginia. In full context:
Nor should our assembly be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes and conclude that these unlimited powers will never be abused, because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price.
Human nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic and will be alike influenced by the same causes. The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.
Moving on to Clausewitz:
At least arguably, we are living Jefferson’s prophecy. We need to fully consider how the Deep State has been scheming to force its “Great Reset” upon our country. The “Deep State” is cancer-like in nature. And like cancer, it must be rooted out before it metastasizes—as it would have if subject to another four years of a Harris (Obama 4.0?) Administration.
Deep State Foe
Clausewitz was all about winning. If Trump is too (he is), rearranging DOE’s “deck chairs” is just a short step across a large chasm. The Deep State cancer would likely just go into a four-year remission only to return with a vengeance with a return of another Democrat Administration down the road someday.
Ultimately, the choice comes down to serving the Deep State/Uniparty or serving the legitimate best interests of “we the people.” There is no “live and let live” middle ground as the present Biden (mis)Administration has abundantly demonstrated in words and deeds. Nor is there sufficient funding for “all electric” or even “all the above” energy policies.
We can’t afford the self-indulgence of environmental virtue signaling. We need only to pursue energy policies that objectively and comprehensively focus on economic least-cost planning (and bidding) so we can avoid the looming reality of economic collapse. And yes, there is still room for objective energy efficiency; if it is market-based (as opposed to “big brother” dictates to throw money at an illusionary problem). There is even room for least-cost environmental progress. As RFK Jr. knows, soil regeneration is one of these.
It is imperative that the Trump 2.0 Administration achieve and demonstrate tangible and substantial results for energy consumers as soon as possible. Immediate actions should include clawing back the tragic Inflation Reduction Act, an all-you-can eat funding buffet for a myriad of parasitic “clean energy” zealots. These zealots have already received enough (unwitting taxpayer) IRA funding to plague “we the people” for decades to come.
The most efficient tactic (but not necessarily easiest) would be to simply eliminate DOE departments that oversee such funding. And along with that, repeal equally corrupted legislation that authorized DOE’s regulatory mission creep, such as the obsolete Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) and self-serving, loophole riddled revisions thereof.
In short and in closing, DOE is not worth trying to salvage, because its cancer culture is immune to modest political reforms and intervention. Thus, like a junk car, part out what can be safely and economically salvaged and eliminate the rest. Assuming control of the House and Senate, this is, for the first time, entirely doable; given the will to persevere. So let’s declare victory over the gas lines of the 1970s and move on to overcoming House and Senate resistance for dramatically reducing the economic threatening cholesterol of excessive spending.
————————–
Mark Krebs, a mechanical engineer and energy policy consultant, has been involved with energy efficiency design and program evaluation for over thirty years. Mark has served as an expert witness in dozens of State energy efficiency proceedings, has been an advisor to DOE and has submitted scores of Federal energy-efficiency filings. His many MasterResource posts on natural gas vs. electricity and “Deep Decarbonization” federal policy can be found here. Mark’s first article was in Public Utilities Fortnightly, titled “It’s a War Out There: A Gas Man Questions Electric Efficiency” (December 1996). Recently retired from Spire Inc., Krebs has formed an energy policy consultancy (Gas Analytic & Advocacy Services) with other veteran energy analysts.
Tom Tanton (tantontwitter@gmail.com) is Director with Energy and Environmental Legal Institute. Mr. Tanton has 45 years in energy and environmental policy, focused on enabling technology choice and economic development. Mr. Tanton has testified to numerous state Legislatures and Congress as an expert on energy policy. He formerly served as Principal Policy Advisor at the California Energy Commission.
[3] Tension with utility chiefs marked Dan Brouillette’s short stint atop EEI
It can be extremely difficult (if not downright impossible) to distinguish who is a careerist swamp creature and who is not.
The swamp creatures are well aware that four years is a very short period of time in the scheme of things.
K Street is not stupid. They are well acquainted with how to dangle the promise of lobbyist donations and $2MM lobbyist jobs in front of people making $200,000.
The swamp is completely and hopelessly corrupt. The only cure in many cases is outright abolition of entire departments or mandatory relocation to Bismarck/Pottawottomie/Pocatello.
John:
If you’re referring to Brouillette, all I’m saying is that going from DOE Secretary to EEI President looks swampy. It’s tantamount to becoming a lobbyist (IMO). Going back to DOE through a revolving door also looks swampy. Regardless, since energy is the “master resource.” whoever becomes the next Secretary of DOE shouldn’t play favorites. That includes hiding behind the guise of “all of the above” as opposed to an advocate of “best bang for the buck.”
Having worked on DOE issues and particularly EERE programs for a number of decades, I would be all-in to scrap EERE altogether if possible. But we’ve been underwhelmed with efforts to reign in DOE before, recalling the Reagan Administration first term and the Secretary’s mission to wind down DOE until (as reported) the President was informed that DOE was responsible for the nuclear weapons program. Progress on major DOE reforms stopped there for the most part. So, in response to the suggestion to “part-out whatever missions … worth saving,” and specific reforms if DOE is to stay intact, I’ll suggest the following:
• To the example of the nuclear weapons program authority, this should be removed from DOE once and for all and put within the Department of Defense or under a new authority dedicated to the current mission on nuclear weapons. I wouldn’t care so much on where the nuclear weapons program goes, just take it and the national laboratories’ related responsibilities away from DOE once and for all.
• To issues of DOE buying legislator support by dispensing federal funds, most recently and egregiously exemplified by misuse of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding under DOE’s Office of State and Community Energy Programs (SCEP), such initiatives should be cancelled immediately and replaced with energy “block grants” for state and local determination of community energy needs and uses of funds. Communities neither need nor do they deserve the federal government strings of federal programs such as SCEP’s IRA scheme on the use of federal funds. IRA funds could be replaced at a rate of less than one to one dollar to SCEP program funds applied for since communities could most efficiency use the federal funds even at a lesser funding level in exchange for the benefits of local control. Block grants worked well back as far as the Nixon Administration, an example that is documented in numerous sources including the following: https://federalism.org/encyclopedia/no-topic/block-grants/#:~:text=Block%20grants%20are%20an%20intergovernmental,dollar%20amount%20of%20federal%20grants.
• DOE’s involvement in voluntary non-federal building codes and standards, sometimes serving as chairs of codes- and standards-writing task groups, should end immediately. Voluntary non-federal codes and standards had been historically a process of federalism where state and local policy-making and stakeholder-exercised governance. In the last eight years or so, DOE has completely taken over key roles in these activities (by buying its way in with direct funding and contributions of in-kind national laboratory staff time and resources) and has served a primary role of pushing Administration centralized energy policies such as “net zero” emissions, often serving as the proponents of codes and standards changes. National laboratory missions do not support such activism, and use of DOE funds through the national laboratories is outside of legal authorization.
• More generally, the national laboratories’ roles related to domestic energy generation and use should be formally reviewed with respect to their missions. According to mission-related roles, “what we do” at national laboratories is as follows:
“The National Laboratories conduct research and development that addresses the Department of Energy’s core missions in energy, science, national security, and environmental stewardship. It is often said that the Laboratories exist to tackle particularly difficult problems that fall beyond the capabilities of private industry or individual universities. Each Laboratory contributes specific core competencies, unique facilities, and research teams representing an array of disciplines to push the boundaries of science, engineering, and technology.” (https://nationallabs.org/our-labs/what-we-do/#:~:text=The%20National%20Laboratories%20conduct%20research,national%20security%2C%20and%20environmental%20stewardship.)
Nothing in this description justifies national laboratory involvement in voluntary non-federal building codes and standards development processes as advocates, voting committee members, or Administration policy messengers. The overreach of national laboratories has gotten to the point where one laboratory has recently served as proponent of major code changes to the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), voting committee member, analyst for code change proposals including its own and others, and likely evaluator of code cost effectiveness as called for under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). These four-square conflicts of interest, however, begin with DOE’s authorization of national laboratories to serve in these roles simultaneously on a code cycle.
Thank you for this. I listened to a United States Energy Association Virtual Press Briefing in June – “The Deepening Electricity Supply Crisis.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=_1oNS9GzMqPT5bI4&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjQsMTY0NTA2&v=aouLt4JdyQw&feature=youtu.be
Pretty much everyone agreed the demand was going up and reliability was important. Also implied by multiple experts and much of the conversation was around the idea that we must decarbonize and transition, no one was questioned on these assumptions.
Brouillette was present, and he said that fully decarbonizing the grid, fully decarbonizing electricity production in the United States “probably won’t happen by 2035 but that does not suggest for a second that we won’t make every effort to reduce emissions and to continue the path toward decarbonization.”
Zeldin and Burgum’s proclivities to the carbon industrial complex are also concerning. Add Brouillette to the mix (or any other CO2 apologist) and that is three too many. I sure hope I am wrong.
According to “The Hill,” Burgum is fond of “Net Zero” through carbon capture & sequestration (CCS). Perhaps that’s just for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). JFK Jr, however, opposes CCS and has a YouTube video on it. (links to both at the end).
The issue is to focus on technologies that can objectively demonstrate “best bang for the buck.” I know EOR has been using CCS for decades. I don’t know if subsidies are involved, but I assume they probably are.
I hope and expect that there will be constructive/informed debates to sort out what is best for real-world consumers.
Links:
1. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4993464-burgum-energy-czar-trump/?email=467cb6399cb7df64551775e431052b43a775c749&emaila=12a6d4d069cd56cfddaa391c24eb7042&emailb=054528e7403871c79f668e49dd3c44b1ec00c7f611bf9388f76bb2324d6ca5f3&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=11.15.2024–Overnight%20Energy%20%26%20Environment
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llcvrKDJRo0
Do you still have to pay for electricity and gasoline?
Not us, we invested in a solar system and electric cars and have lived and driven with free electricity for eight years now.
The PV solar system paid back in three years in gasoline savings alone.
Liberal Economics.
Thanks to your fellow taxpayers? And maybe you can afford the up=front costs; most cannot/
With taxpayer subsidies? Just remove government and you and all can make their private decisions with energy.
Are all of you ignorant of climate change?
Let’ discuss the actual science, which you cannot do.
I want to hear from you silly deniers.
NO, many of us have studied physical climate science for decades. And exaggeration has no place in science. Climategate turns 15 this week if you want to know ….
This blog site has followed climate science closely, and exaggerated, unscientific climate models leave CO2 greening as a positive. CO2/climate optimism is merited.
thedailyeconomy.org/article/climate-co2-optimism/
Where do you live? Sunny California? I live Burnaby, BC and the last week has been cloudy and rainy. In mid winter there is snow. There would be no electricity from solar panels. In BC, 97% of the electricity is generated by hydro dams in Peace river system. Electricity cost ca. 7 cents per kWh. No need for solar panels and wind turbines.
On Aug. 1, I turned 80 years old, and have experienced no “climate change”.
The season come and go like they always have.
The claim by the IPCC that there is “climate change” due to the emission of greenhouse gases is a deliberate lie. The purpose of this lie is to provide for the UN the justification for the distribution of funds, via the UNFCCC and the UN COP, from the donor rich countries to the poor countries. At COP29 the poor countries a clamoring for many billions of dollars from the rich countries.
Have you experienced any “climate change”?