Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday December 11 2016, @03:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the about-turn? dept.

On Friday morning, Bloomberg reported that it had seen a copy of a questionnaire sent by the Trump transition team to the Department of Energy (DOE). The questionnaire includes 75 questions directed at the DOE and the Energy Information Agency (EIA), as well as any labs underneath the DOE's purview. The New York Times then obtained and published a copy of the document.

Although the questions are broad in nature, they seem to set the department up for budget and staffing cuts. They also appear to favor nuclear power and fossil fuel.

Questions that address cuts to the DOE's mission include: "Which Assistant Secretary positions are rooted in statute and which exist at the discretion and delegation of the Secretary?", as well as "If the DOE's topline budget in accounts other than the 050 account were required to be reduced 10% over the next four fiscal years (from the FY17 request and starting in FY18), does the Department have any recommendations as to where those reductions should be made?" A 050 account indicates national defense spending.

With respect to renewables and research, the questionnaire asks the DOE to provide a complete list of the projects shouldered by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which funds early-stage energy technology that would otherwise not be funded on the private market. ARPA-E opened its doors in 2009 under President Obama and works on battery research, biofuel production, and wind turbine projects.

Efforts to modernize the US' aging and inefficient grids also seemed to get a critical eye. "What is the goal of the grid modernization effort?" the questionnaire asks. "Is there some terminal point to this effort? Is its genesis statutory or something else?"

[Continues...]

[...] While divining the motivations behind the questions is difficult, some of them have potentially nefarious undertones. One of the questions asks for a list of all employees or contractors who attended meetings about the social cost of carbon, as well as a list of materials distributed at those meetings. Another asks "Can you provide a list of Department employees who attended any of the Conference of the Parties (under the UNFCCC) in the last five years?" According to the Washington Post , one unnamed Energy Department official expressed concern that "the Trump transition team was trying to figure out how to target the people, including civil servants, who have helped implement policies under Obama." Scientists have asked the administration to "refrain from singling out individual researchers whose work might conflict with the new administration's policy goals."

[...] The questionnaire also has pointed questions for the EIA, an independent agency under the DOE umbrella that provides energy market analysis. The questionnaire seemingly accuses the EIA of overlooking the costs of renewable energy when comparing it to fossil fuels. "Renewable and solar technologies are expected to need additional transmission costs above what fossil technologies need," the questionnaire states. "How has EIA represented this in the AEO [Annual Energy Outlook] forecasts? What is the magnitude of those transmission costs?"

Thomas Pyle, the head of the pro-fossil fuel American Energy Alliance, is leading Trump's Department of Energy Transition team, and he likely had a hand in assembling these questions. According to the Washington Post, Pyle recently wrote a fundraising pitch decrying "the Obama administration's divisive energy and environmental policies" and promising that "the Trump administration will adopt pro-energy and pro-market policies."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Sunday December 11 2016, @04:50AM

    by Whoever (4524) on Sunday December 11 2016, @04:50AM (#439896) Journal

    Republicans talk about cutting the budget, but history suggests that all they want to do is to cut areas that benefit the poor and allow regulations and laws (tax laws in particular) to be enforced. Inability to enforce tax laws provides more opportunities for the wealthy to increase their wealth.

    Cutting the welfare state has the effect of removing any safety net for the poor, so pay rates can be reduced and the poor do not have the ability to fight back.

    Ultimately, what Republicans are interested in is class warfare. If they were really interested in cutting the budget, they should start with the military.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=3, Total=6
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by BK on Sunday December 11 2016, @06:48AM

    by BK (4868) on Sunday December 11 2016, @06:48AM (#439918)

    Democrats talk about benefiting the poor, but history suggests that they build programs that entrap and enslave the poor in the long term and use the threat of the removal of these programs, of change, to ensure that they can remain in power.

    What were you talking about?

    --
    ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Sunday December 11 2016, @06:54AM

      by Whoever (4524) on Sunday December 11 2016, @06:54AM (#439921) Journal

      History suggests that you are just spouting a Republican talking point and not fact.

      • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by BK on Sunday December 11 2016, @07:08AM

        by BK (4868) on Sunday December 11 2016, @07:08AM (#439926)

        History suggests that you went first with the talking points.

        History also suggests that yo momma so fat that when she sat on Home Depot it became Lowes.

        What I enjoy most about SN is the maturity of the topics and the commenters.

        --
        ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    • (Score: 2) by rondon on Monday December 12 2016, @02:48PM

      by rondon (5167) on Monday December 12 2016, @02:48PM (#440371)

      I don't always agree with BK, but this time I do.

      Welfare has been structured so that the local maxima in terms of income is for a person to NOT have a job. In fact, getting a part time job decreases benefits by more than the income of the job in question.

      This is a trap, which is designed to guide poor people to the local maxima which is detrimental to them in the long term. I would welcome someone who modded BK as a troll to please refute my statements with facts. If I am wrong, please inform me.