Natural Gas NOW Picks of the Week – April 20, 2019

Tom Shepstone
Shepstone Management Company, Inc.

…

…

Natural Gas NOW readers pass along a lot of stuff every week about natural gas, fractivist antics, emissions, renewables, and other news relating to energy. As usual, emphasis is added.

“So We Spent $1 Million Per Job?”

GreenTechMedia says Tesla is “staring down a 2020 employment deadline in New York state” and “skeptics wonder if the company can meet it.” 

As the reader whom forwarded this notes, “GreenTechMedia is generally favorable to renewable energy, but apparently they do not appreciate scams in the name of renewables.” Indeed.

“The Pieces Did Not Add Up to
The Whole We Were Trying to Plan”

According to UtilityDive, it’s not likely California can possibly meet its climate goals. “A new bill may capture broad agreement about the need for a central backstop procurement entity, but doubts about it remain,” it says. What’s this about the need for a “backstop,” all of a sudden?

Gaps in resource procurement by California’s proliferating load serving entities (LSEs) could prevent the state from achieving its nation-leading renewable energy and climate goals.

The state’s massive renewable resource portfolio has gaps in it that threaten the reliable delivery of electricity, according to a March 18 proposed decision in the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) integrated resource planning docket. The docket was designed to address reliability in planning by assuring that variable resources are adequately balanced by resources that are available when needed.

The CPUC must decide whether the LSEs’ combined plans will deliver “a reliable and affordable electric system” while meeting California’s mandated climate goals, Administrative Law Judge Julie Fitch wrote in the March 18 proposed decision.

That will require balancing “existing and new resources” with “baseload and intermittent resources” made up of “renewable, storage, and conventional fossil-fueled resources,” Fitch wrote. In the LSEs’ filings, “there is inconsistent, and in some cases, nonexistent, recognition of these realities.”

The article is an exercise in obfuscation, but, if one reads closely, it’s apparent serious Californians are realizing they still need dispatchable energy (natural gas) to have any hope the whole thing will work. Once again, our reader makes a good observation. “Renewables are so far behind schedule that natural gas is the only viable alternative for at least the next several decades,” he says. I agree. 

Valve-Turner Conviction Gets Overturned,
Breathing New Life Into “Necessity Defense”

Well, Washington State courts have “gone to the dogs.”

A Washington state appeals court threw out the conviction of “valve-turner” Ken Ward, ruling “the trial court erred in preventing Ward from introducing evidence in support of his necessity defense,” thereby violating his constitutional rights.

Ward was one of five activist extremists who launched a coordinated effort to stop the flow of oil from Canada into the U.S. by breaking into the pipeline valve stations in four different states and closing emergency shut-off valves…

Following is how the appeals court interpreted Ward’s case for the necessity defense:

“…Ward offered evidence of his more than 40 years being involved in various environmental movements, the numerous attempts he has made to address climate change, and how most of those efforts have failed … Ward offered evidence that he had tried the alternatives and they were unsuccessful. Whether Ward’s evidence was sufficient to establish that his history of failed attempts to address climate change revealed the futility of supposed reasonable alternatives was a question for the jury. Viewed in the light most favorable to Ward, and admitting the truth of his evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, Ward’s offer of proof created a question for the jury.”

“Because Ward met his initial burden of showing that he would likely be able to submit a sufficient quantum of evidence on each element of necessity to make it a jury question whether he established that element beyond a reasonable doubt, the trial court violated his constitutional right.”

This is extremely dangerous. If a state appeals court will give this much credence to the ridiculous “necessity defense” argument, we are all in deep trouble. If you suppose I’m exaggerating, simply put the shoe on the other foot. Simply take your favorite cause, and imagine someone who views opposing your cause as a necessary action and is willing to violate the law to stop you. It’s not hard if you try and you may come away with a new respect for the rule of law.