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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @09:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @09:36PM (#440073)

    You're arguments are soooo bad. You're like the middle school dropout of SN. I notice you got answers and never replied back yourself, looks like your attempt at "a point" just stabbed you in the back.

  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday December 11 2016, @11:35PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Sunday December 11 2016, @11:35PM (#440117)

    Nobody has even tried to answer the question. I have used this one many time, in many places. Nobody EVER tries to answer the question. I'll leave answering the obvious followup question of WHY as an exercise for the student.

    • (Score: 2) by rondon on Monday December 12 2016, @02:43PM

      by rondon (5167) on Monday December 12 2016, @02:43PM (#440368)

      You honestly don't think BK answered your question?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday December 12 2016, @03:33PM

        by jmorris (4844) on Monday December 12 2016, @03:33PM (#440391)

        Nope. He, correctly in my opinion, asserts that revenues should equal expenditures. But note what is carefully avoided. Nobody wants to point to the hypothetical stack of cash and say THIS much is fair for the State to seize but no more. Thus "Fair Share" remains undefined, capable of encompassing the 90%+ tax rates of the 20th Century or even the 100% more than a few Progressives of today speak of. And on the other hand, by remaining undefined it is free to assume in each listener's mind the amount they want to imagine as "Fair" and thus never being imagined as onerous.

        But at bottom, this is all about the sins of Envy and Greed. It is the most common failure mode of Democracy and the primary reason our Founding Fathers warned so strongly against allowing our Republic to degenerate into one. It is always possible to convince those who do not produce, and thus pay no taxes, to vote for sharing in the spoils of those who do produce; and it only requires a demagogue of ordinary talent to convince the takers they are moral in doing so.