Texas Gas Companies Hit Texas Consumers With 'Whoops You Froze To Death' Surcharge

from the frozen-to-death-surcharge dept

If you hadn't noticed, the United States isn't really prepared for climate change. In part because corporations and disinformation mills have convinced countless Americans a destabilizing climate isn't actually happening. But also because we were already perpetually underinvesting in our core infrastructure before the symptoms of an unstable climate began to manifest. It's a massive problem that, as John Oliver highlighted six years ago, doesn't get the same attention as other pressing issues of the day. You know, like the latest influencer drama or the mortal threat posed by TikTok.

Infrastructure policy is treated as annoying and boring... until a crisis hits and suddenly everybody cares. As millions of Texans found out earlier this year when the state's energy infrastructure crumbled like a rotten old house under the weight of heating energy demands, leaving millions without power during a major cold snap. While the state engaged in a lot of performative nonsense in the wake of the breakdown, nothing much changed. Most of the state laws passed to "fix" the problem just punted any meaningful action down the road, while carving out big exemptions for natural gas companies that helped write the laws.

Fast forward nine months and the natural gas companies that refused to upgrade and weather proof their infrastructure, still largely haven't done so. What have they done? Well, recently they decided to hit Texas natural gas customers with a major and obnoxious new $3.4 billion surcharge with the blessing of state regulators:

"Texans will be paying for the effects of last February’s cold snap for decades to come, as the state’s oil and gas regulator approved a plan for natural gas utilities to recover $3.4 billion in debt they incurred during the storm. The regulator, the Railroad Commission, is allowing utilities to issue bonds to cover the debt. As a result, ratepayers could see an increase in their bills for the next 30 years.

So not only did Texas regulators not hold local energy utilities and frackers accountable for not weather proofing their infrastructure after decades of warnings, they're happily signing off on a plan to let them punish consumers for their own incompetence. The dysfunction runs parallel with similar dysfunction in the telecom sector, where companies routinely fail to adequately invest in their networks, yet still somehow punish their captive customers and taxpayers with the blessing of local regulators who rarely hold them accountable for anything. The big difference of course: a broadband outage (usually) won't kill you.

Granted the dysfunction in Texas doesn't just impact Texans. The regulatory corruption and incompetence has a ripple effect on things like natural gas prices, which impacts users in other states as well, as Katie Sieben, chairwoman of the Minnesota Public Utility Commission, told The Washington Post back in April:

"The ineptness and disregard for common-sense utility regulation in Texas makes my blood boil and keeps me up at night,” Katie Sieben, chairwoman of the Minnesota Public Utility Commission, said in an interview. “It is maddening and outrageous and completely inexcusable that Texas’s lack of sound utility regulation is having this impact on the rest of the country."

This kind of infrastructure corruption and dysfunction is nothing new (again, just look at US telecom, rail travel, or countless other sectors). But climate change is one arena where state/federal corruption and our propaganda problem has congealed into something particularly nasty. It's not clear how many mass-fatality events we have to live through before we embrace meaningful corruption, lobbying, and regulatory reform, but it's apparently going to be a significant number, as America remains utterly allergic to learning anything from history or experience.

Filed Under: climate change, energy prices, surchargers, texas

Texas Pols Shocked To Learn Their Bill Let Gas Companies Off The Hook For Climate Change Preparedness

from the you're-not-helping dept

Having covered telecom for a long time, I've lost track of the times I've watched some befuddled lawmaker shocked by the content of their own bill. Usually, that's because they outsourced the writing of it to their primary campaign contributors, which in telecom is usually AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter. Sometimes they're so clueless to what their "own" bill includes they'll turn to lobbyists in the middle of a hearing to seek clarity. This is, of course, outright corruption. But we tend to laugh it off and normalize it, and the press generally refuses to accurately label it corruption.

There are endless parallels when it comes to the energy sector. Like this week, when Texas lawmakers were shocked to realize their recent state energy bill failed to require that Texas natural gas companies harden their infrastructure for climate change--despite the fact their own bill included giant loopholes to that effect.

In the wake of the disastrous and deadly climate-related crisis in Texas last winter, the state passed several bills purporting to fix the problem. Many, like Senate Bill 3, largely just punted the can down the road, urging for a mapping of Texas's existing energy infrastructure, and giving the Texas Railroad Commission 180 days to finalize its weatherization rules. None of the solutions, of course, challenged entrenched energy providers, or tackled the core of the problem in Texas: an almost mindless deference to wealthy local energy executives.

At a recent hearing in Texas, lawmakers blasted both the Texas Railroad Commission and local natural gas companies when they realized the latter had failed to weatherize their infrastructure with winter looming. The problem was that their own legislation provided the loopholes that made this possible:

"In a committee hearing Tuesday, Texas senators were furious that natural gas companies won’t have to better prepare their facilities for extreme weather before this winter and rebuked the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the state’s massive oil and gas industry, for not fixing the problem sooner.

“Wait a minute,” state Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, told Wei Wang, executive director of the Railroad Commission. “You haven’t done it yet?”

But the “loophole” that lawmakers spent the hearing condemning and the slow timetable for winterizing the state power grid were part of legislation they approved during the regular legislative session in the spring."

Basically the bill in question lets natural gas companies opt out of system hardening requirements if they simply don’t voluntarily declare themselves to be “critical infrastructure” with the state. This was all but certainly a provision included by the companies themselves and rubber stamped by the politicians paid to love them. More often than not, a politician's only understanding of their own bill comes from a .pdf provided by the companies that actually wrote the legislation (usually via some sort of proxy organization like ALEC to give it a thin veneer of faux legitimacy), resulting in obvious outcomes like this one.

Reports continue to illustrate the grotesque cronyism and corruption that resulted in countless deaths in Texas last winter. And of course it's not only a Texas problem. Our mindless tendency to throw billions of dollars in tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory favors at industry giants while ignoring infrastructure needs in the face of climate change is a country-wide affair. And the wholesale corruption that makes all of this possible continues to be normalized in most press coverage as a growing array of terrible climate catastrophes bear down on a dysfunctional nation.

Filed Under: climate change, electrical grid, legislation, loophiles, texas, weatherizing

Fossil Fuel Companies Want Governments To Pay $18 Billion For Bringing In Laws Tackling The Climate Crisis Largely Caused By Fossil Fuel Companies

from the corporate-sovereignty-at-work dept

Back in 2013, Techdirt started writing about the boring-sounding Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system. It was so boring, we decide to use a better term for it: corporate sovereignty. It's an appropriate name, since this system of secret courts effectively places companies above a government, by allowing them to sue a nation if the latter takes actions or brings in laws that might adversely affect their profits. It was originally designed to protect companies that invested in unstable parts of the world, and to discourage things like expropriation by corrupt officials. But clever lawyers soon realized it was much more general than that, and could be used as a weapon against even the most powerful -- and stable -- nations.

It allows deep-pocketed companies -- typically multinational corporations -- to threaten governments with big fines if they pass laws or make decisions that aren't to the companies' liking. That includes actions that are clearly justified and in the interests of the country's citizens. For example, over the years Techdirt has written about how corporate sovereignty was used to threaten governments that wanted to protect public health, even measures to tackle COVID-19.

In 2015, this blog warned that the TAFTA/TTIP trade agreement under discussion then would allow companies to challenge actions taken to protect the environment, such as bringing in laws to tackle the climate crisis. TAFTA/TTIP never happened, so fossil fuel companies have now turned to other treaties to demand over $18 billion as "compensation" for the potential loss of future profits as a result of recent decisions taken around the world to tackle climate change. Global Justice Now has a summary:

Five fossil fuel companies are suing governments for more than $18bn for taking climate action that could harm their profits, new figures reveal, as protestors demand an end to secretive corporate courts.

TC Energy, RWE, Uniper, Rockhopper, and Ascent are suing governments through investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), a shadowy system of corporate courts that operates outside of a country's domestic legal system as it is built into trade and investment deals.

Four of the five cases are under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), an energy investment agreement that includes ISDS, which the UK and EU are signed up to. TC Energy's case against the US government is under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The $18bn (£13bn) demanded by just five companies is almost equivalent to the entire net annual climate funding provided by rich countries to the developing world, which Oxfam assesses as $19-22bn.

As that last paragraph points out, if the companies are successful -- by no means guaranteed, but entirely possible, given the nature of the special ISDS courts -- the money needed to pay companies would amount to the the entire annual climate funding provided to the developing world. It seems a bit rich that these companies should not only make huge profits from selling fossil fuels that are largely responsible for our climate crisis, but also want to be paid serious money for being forced to stop. But that's corporate sovereignty for you; it's clearly time to get rid of it.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: climate change, corporate sovereignty, ect, fossil fuels, isds, lost profits, nafta
Companies: ascent, rockhopper, rwe, tc energy, uniper

Did A Former National Parks Employee Violate The CFAA By Tweeting About Climate Change?

from the the-tweets-heard-round-the-world dept

As you may have heard, over the past few days, there's been a lot of talk about various US government Twitter feeds "going rogue" in what many believe is an attempt at a bit of civil disobedience following gag orders being sent from the White House to various federal departments and agencies, with a particular ban on social media. Soon after that came out, the Twitter feed of the famed Badlands National Park in South Dakota, started tweeting about climate change:

Those tweets have since been deleted, but they certainly caused quite a stir, and there's even what claims to be a private rogue National Parks Service twitter feed that won't be silenced at @AltNatPartSer. That's apparently inspired other government employees to set up similar "rogue" Twitter accounts. As I write this, there are about two dozen such accounts on this list, with some personal favorites being the @Alt_FDA, the @RogueNASA and @AltFedCyberz. Now, it's important to state that there's no direct proof that these are actually run by federal employees, but the whole thing is fascinating to watch.

But, that alone doesn't necessarily make it worthy of a Techdirt post (yes, there's a possible Streisand Effect angle on all of this, but it remains to be seen how strong that really is). What caught my eye, however, was how the National Park Service eventually explained those original Badlands tweets, telling BuzzFeed that they were done by an ex-employee who had retained his password, but wasn't authorized to tweet from the account:

Now, the exact wording of that statement also made my ears perk up, because "not currently authorized to use the park's account" could have pretty serious legal consequences. As reporter Matt Pearce unfortunately, but correctly, points out, this could be interpreted, by some, to be a violation fo the CFAA.

You remember the CFAA, of course. That's the "anti-hacking" Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, that has an unfortunately long history of being twisted and questionably interpreted to mean that just about anything people don't like that you do on a computer is potentially a violation. In particular, many cases have focused specifically on what constitutes "without authorization" or "exceeds authorized access" under the law. The fact that the NPS directly claims that this person was "not currently authorized" certainly could be seen to trip the "without authorization" or "exceeds authorized access" lines.

Of course, the CFAA has different sections -- and most of the cases we talk about tend to focus on 1030(a)(4) which covers accessing information whose value is over $5,000. It's difficult to see how one could twist the Badlands tweets as being about accessing information valued at more than $5,000, but there is also 1030(a)(3), which one would hope also would not apply... but where you could see an overzealous DOJ try to make it stick. That's the section that says it's a violation of the CFAA to access a computer that "is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States."

Now, it's pretty clear that the intent here is to go after someone who hacks into a system and somehow interferes with the government making use of that computer (and, remember, the entire reason we have a CFAA is because some clueless politicians -- including Ronald Reagan -- freaked out about the very, very fictional movie War Games). But, given how the DOJ has stretched the interpretation of the CFAA in the past, would it be possible for them to try to claim that by making unauthorized access to a Twitter account, and tweeting those tweets, it was using a computer that "is used by the Government" and the "conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States" and that the access was "without authorization"? It... seems unfortunately possible.

So far, the administration doesn't seem too concerned about this... but just the fact that this is even possible is yet another reminder of just how ridiculous the CFAA is, and how it is in desperate need of serious reform.

Filed Under: cfaa, climate change, donald trump, former employee, national park service, tweets, unauthorized access

DailyDirt: Out With A Whimper

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Our planet's environment is in a delicate balance with the ecosystem that's largely invisible. We have a thin ozone layer protecting everything from harmful UV rays. Plants seem to be doing a great job of supplying breathable oxygen. It's a bit concerning when human activity throws off something in the atmosphere on a large scale, but we might be able to do something about it. The first step, though, is admitting that we have a problem.

• Snow-dwelling algae on glaciers might be a problem someday. Pink snow looks a bit unusual, but the algae that grows on frozen ice in a visible amount -- is also making that snow melt faster. And we probably don't want glaciers melting any faster than usual in the next few decades.
• What ever happened to the hole in the ozone layer? The use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) has been significantly reduced, and the hole is expected to heal itself by 2050 -- thanks to the Montreal Protocol passed in 1987.
• The reduction of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution has had a tangible effect on soil acidity -- finally. It's taken over two decades for regulations aimed at curbing acid rain (by limiting sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-fueled power plants) to start showing some positive results in the environment.

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: acid rain, algae, cfcs, climate change, environmental damage, hfcs, montreal protocol, nitrogen oxide, ozone hole, pollution, sulfur dioxide

DailyDirt: What, Me Worry?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The price of oil is surprisingly low -- dipping below $30 a barrel recently. That's not a bad thing for consumers who like to drive and have warm homes in the winter and for the prices of a whole lot of other things. But let's not get too comfortable with hydrocarbon-based fuels for too long. There are a few concerning things about burning fossil fuels -- even if we're not worried about carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. However, the alternatives might not be that great, either.

• A massive methane leak in southern California has been spewing over 100,000 pounds per hour of natural gas into the atmosphere for months now. Several attempts to plug the leak have failed, possibly making the problem worse each time, and it could be sometime in March before the leak is under some control. [url]
• BP spent over $14 billion on cleanup efforts after the Deepwater Horizon accident in 2010. The environmental damage is still being assessed, and all kinds of marine wildlife from around the world might be affected (e.g., turtles). It's estimated that 4.9 million barrels of oil were released, and a sizable amount of that oil is unaccounted for -- though Mother Nature may have biodegraded some of it. [url]
• Satellite imagery from 2003-2009 detected a mysterious methane hotspot near the Four Corners intersection of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah. This leak poured about 590,000 tons of methane into the air for each year it was seen, and no one has quite pinpointed its source(s) yet. For reference, this methane hotspot emits more than natural leaks from the ocean floor. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: carbon dioxide, climate change, deepwater horizon, environmental damage, fossil fuels, methane, oil, pollution

DailyDirt: Reducing Carbon Dioxide

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

We've discussed carbon dioxide before, and there are plenty of other places that talk about the doom and gloom of what happens when CO2 levels increase in the atmosphere. But there are also a bunch of people figuring out ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and monitor what effects anthropogenic carbon dioxide actually has on our planet. Check out a few of these projects that could help keep carbon dioxide emissions in check.

• Building a "Hydrogen Economy" is a bit more complicated than it first appears -- because obtaining hydrogen usually involves energy-inefficient processes that also produce carbon dioxide waste. Fortunately, a new methane cracking method could produce hydrogen (and pure carbon without releasing carbon dioxide) reliably, but the costs to scale it up are always the trick for these kinds of projects. [url]
• Maybe you've been skeptical about how any countries would be able to make any kind of commitment to reducing the production of carbon dioxide -- when the atmosphere already contains it and it's not like the molecules can be stamped "made in the USA" easily. If you thought satellite data collection was the answer, you get partial credit, but atmosphere-sampling research planes and special air-collecting helium balloon equipment will likely also be used to try to accurately measure CO2 production with geographic variation. [url]
• Building materials such as cement (and concrete which contains cement) produce a LOT of carbon dioxide emissions. So it's not too surprising that some folks have been trying to replace traditional concrete and cement with other materials that don't contribute as much to atmospheric pollution. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for stocking stuffers and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: atmospheric pollution, carbon dioxide, cement, climate change, co2, concrete, energy, greenhouse gas, hydrogen economy, methane cracking
Companies: calera, carbon sciences

DailyDirt: Geoengineering Could Have Its Own Unintended Consequences

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

If you haven't noticed, there's a climate change conference going on that could have an impact on global commerce and... possibly the global climate, if you believe we puny humans can actually change the climate. Even if you don't think climate change is a real problem, it shouldn't hurt to explore more energy technologies or environmental remediation techniques, right? (Well, unless we get ourselves into a Snowpiercer situation.)

• Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg (and others who aren't famous billionaires) are trying to get "large funding commitments for basic and applied research" for energy technology. Maybe $20 billion invested in research over the next few years will help get everyone away from burning fossil fuels -- or at least make fossil fuels less polluting? [url]
• A geoengineering solution that comes up every so often is to create a "fake volcano" and spray sulfuric acid into the upper atmosphere. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it caused a global temperature dip by ejecting aerosol droplets that reflected sunlight -- so an artificial aerosol spray could perform the same trick for a relatively low cost (assuming we actually wanted to do it). [url]
• Russ George dumped about 100 tons of iron sulfate into the Pacific Ocean off the west coast of Canada in 2012 -- seeding the ocean with this fertilizer that spawned a huge artificial plankton bloom. George wasn't commended for his experiment, but did it work? Mostly likely it did, though it might also depend on how you define success. But should anyone do it again? [url]
• Phytoplankton could evolve to sequester carbon dioxide, absorbing as much CO2 as tropical rainforests do. Or someone could artificially engineer these microscopic organisms to convert CO2 into biomass, but it's still unclear what effect it might have on the carbon cycle. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, check out this holiday gift guide for some awesome deals at the Techdirt deals store.

Filed Under: bill gates, biomass, carbon cycle, carbon dioxide, clean energy, climate change, co2, energy, geoengineering, iron sulfate, mark zuckerberg, mount pinatubo, phytoplankton, russ george

French Government Using State Of Emergency As An Excuse To Round Up Climate Change Activists

from the mission-creep dept

In response to the attacks in Paris earlier this month, the French government has enacted a state of emergency. Like the War on Terror itself, this "state of emergency" has no discernible end in sight. The government has given itself an incredible amount of power for an indefinite period of time. When this power shift happens, abuse follows.

The Guardian is reporting that the nation's law enforcement agencies are straying far from their original targets: those responsible for the attacks, along with anyone who appears to be sympathetic to the cause. The government now appears to be authorizing the arrest of anyone it can brand a troublemaker.

At least 24 climate activists have been put under house arrest by French police, accused of flouting a ban on organising protests during next week’s Paris climate summit, the Guardian has learned.

One legal adviser to the activists said many officers raided his Paris apartment and occupied three floors and a staircase in his block.

French authorities did not respond to requests for comment but lawyers said that the warrants were issued under state of emergency laws, imposed after the terror attacks that killed 130 people earlier this month.

The French now understand what it's like to be Spanish. Of course, it must be pointed out that very few countries, even a country once at the forefront of personal freedoms, would handle this situation any differently.

The Garland (TX) attack ushered in several months of stepped-up use of 24/7 monitoring on suspected ISIS supporters. FBI Director James Comey has described the period between May and July as one that stretched the FBI's resources, and that isn't sustainable. Dozens of arrests were made, in many cases not for terrorism-related charges if the FBI couldn't gather enough evidence of a plot.

"In some cases we just needed to get people off the streets," one senior law enforcement official said.

A few of the targeted activists have been placed under house arrest. Others have been handed restraining orders by local judges. Police have also been confiscating computers and personal documents during these raids.

Some might argue that until everything calms down in France, the best plan for activists is to lay low. This could prevent the hijacking of a cause as cover for a violent attack motivated by a different ideology. But this sort of advice only makes sense if the government had expressed a fear of large gatherings in general.

Some protesters argue that the permission granted to football matches, trade fairs and Christmas markets in Paris over the summit period suggests that the authorities’ real concern is to suppress dissent.

This makes the orders some received to limit participants to less than 50 look hypocritical, at best. At worst, it looks like the government is using its state of emergency powers to protect itself from vocal and highly-visible criticism.

Filed Under: activists, arrests, authoritarianism, climate change, france, free speech, paris attacks, police state, surveillance