President-elect Obama’s Energy Secretary-nominee, Dr Steven Chu, appears to be trying to present a less-radical image of himself. During a hearing before the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee yesterday (1/13/09) he backed off of some of his more frightening proclamations. When asked before the committee about his earlier statement that continuing to build coal plants was his “worst nightmare,” he modified it a bit. Instead, he said yesterday that continuing to build coal plants without “capturing carbon” would be a “pretty bad dream.”
Chu also seemed to back off his call for increased federal gasoline taxes which he had earlier promoted to force Americans to use less oil. He cited an Obama statement that the gas tax was “off the table.” Chu also back-peddled a bit on giving FERC authority to site transmission lines, saying, it's important to get such lines built as quickly as possible to meet the goals of the Administration including greatly expanding renewable energy and cutting the power sector's CO2 emissions, but that state sensibilities have to be taken into consideration.
Chu also told Republicans on the committee that he would help fast-track a resurgence of domestic nuclear power and accept oil and gas drilling as part of a broad energy package. And he told Democrats he would champion solar plants and a "smart grid" that could help bring more wind power to market.
Chu, from Berkeley, CA, has seemed to be one of the more radical of Obama’s appointments. It seems, however, that he has decided what sounds good in Berkeley may not be quite so acceptable to the rest of the country, and has toned down his rhetoric quite a bit. Let’s hope this conversion isn’t just situational and that he does plan to administer more from the center than his far-left background, origins and previous statements would have led us to believe.
Right now, facing perhaps the most serious series of crises in the republic’s existence, and for our industry, we don’t need far-left ideologues in power. Obama himself, who was the most liberal Senator in that body, seems to have moved more toward the center in his appointments (excepting Chu, and a couple of others, of course) and his stated policies. We’ll see what happens when they actually get into office. Will they try to govern more from the middle, or are their current statements just temporary? If they revert to a far-left socialist position to govern, I fear for our country and our industry. Let’s pray they don’t.
The vast majority of Americans still are more toward the middle. The utility industry lacks the economic resources--as does the nation--to adopt some of the more radical concepts that come out of places like Berkeley. Shutting down coal before there are viable large-scale alternatives and forcing Americans to stop driving gasoline-powered vehicles before there are affordable alternatives is not good public policy and dangerous to the unity and economic health of the nation. That's not to mention that the founding fathers didn't envision and wouldn't have sanctioned all the "social engineering" from Washington that has become commonplace since the 1930s.
I'd also like to know how people who hold these views avoided learning anything from history and our experience over the last couple of years. Where have they been while the rest of us have lost our homes and retirement accounts?
The only social engineering I've seen is from policymakers and citizens who insist on pretending we don't have a problem and summarily sticking their heads in the sand as the global enconomy crashes around us.
Insisting on maintaining ignorance, privilege, and the status quo does not qualify as effective policy.
As usual you have written a very interesting piece, which has helped me combine it with your next to last article. As you know, I am not from Berkeley, but I wrote the following EWPC article "IOUs Perverse Communism (please hit the link )," whose summary says: "For free society to face "perhaps the most serious series of crises in the republic's existence, and for our" power industry, we need to introduce as soon as possible the creative destruction of the divine dispensation of IOUs perverse communism."
I think that the perverse communism is very 'scary.'
Thanks,
José Antonio